Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-10-17
RICH MOND, VA.
Thursday Morning, October II, 1914.
MIR RlvEs AND ARIsTARCHUS.

MR.. RlVES AND ARISTARCHUS.
"The Mobile Register OF the OH inst, con-
lains the following Editorial article, which We
lay before our readers in justice 10 the Editor; ana
we shall follow IL up, in Il. morrow morning Pa
per, with the letter Of Ars,archus himself, in JUS
li.e 10 lis author. We are happy 10 discover,
that the fraud" and forgery" which NJ Sena-
,or Rives has attributed 10 hiin, turn out 10 be eS
tracts, purporling 10 he quotations from Adam
Smith by Dr. T. Cooper. Al;s,archn> conie>ses
the verbal errors into which he has been bctray-
cd; but after all, how does il clear the skirts OF
Mr. Rives from the original charge, which was
brought against him? The letter OF Aristarchlis
is frankly and powerfully written, and places Mr..
Riyes in no very enviable predicamenf. The
reader, however will have the whole matter before
him tomorrow:
[From he .lEojile Regis'cr.l
1--WE have succeeded in obtaining copy OF
the letter OF Senator Rves of Virginia, which
We referred 10 in our last, as having been written
in reply To- 4 communication in this papcrot Au-
gus, 23d signed Aristarhus Jr., Qni>prned
Ani>,archus.) charging him with fraudulent mis-
quotations OF passage in Smiths Wealth OF
Nations, for the purpose of supporting his new
views Of the Protective Policy. This Letter ap-
peared in the Daily Richmond Enquirer of the
eth ullimo, and was called out BY ihs re-publi
cation in the Enquirer Of the article OF Arisiar-
chus. with editorial references. Neither The IT,
publication nor The Letter Of Mr.. RivcS have met
our eyes vet in the Enquirer MIR. Rilchic, and
We take the opportunity 10 mention the fact, that
hc NAV rcpar lie omission, has not IN; us on
his daily exchange li>i--and the country paper,
in which he has announced his purpose OF put
ting all these documents together, has no; appear
eli We have, therefore, been obliged H. depend
ON a COPY OF The Richmond Wing, loaned Us ~
a nolitical opponent, for our knowledge Of Mr..
Riyes' letter and such excerpts from Mr.. Riches
comments a it pleased his neighbor OF The Wing
TO give. We sec it stated in a later Enquirer,
that the Wing quotes the Enquirer in fragments,
so as 10 give an imperfect impression OF Tie tdi-
tors opinion of the whole OF the case between
MIR. Rives and his accuser This is more polite
than honest. There are strong motives why Mr.
Rives and his defenders should desire 10 have
public attention fixed upon an unucky error in
the quotation OF immatcrial WORDS, rather than
discuss the whole question oi his pervcISions OF
Adam Smiths meaning. But while every Just
amend shall be paid 10 Mr.. RiveS, Tor an invo-
lun,ary mistake male 10 his personal prejudice.
he vii! be KEEP; strictly 10 his defence upon the
main question, of having quoted aud described
Adam Smith diSingenuously end unfairly.
1--WE made no delay on receiving Mr. RivcS :
letter through the Wing, to place il before our
COTleSDUUCtUl iOT UlS pIOilll VI t.i'
causes of the variance between his quotation and
that truly furnished by Mr.. Rivcs as authentic
We knew, from his character as gentleman oil
uni,npcachcd Intelligence and standing, that ne
coud not be suspected of the folly or w'chedness
OF altering quotation, even in 50 trivial matter
as the two words in question. The only purpose
could Le 10 aSsail Mr. Riycs personally; Tor they
do not alter al all the meaning OF The paragraph,
and OF that the writer was Incapable II he were
not TOO Intelligent 10 practise fraud certain TO r.
coil 10 his own Giscrcdii. He has accordingly
furnished Us for to-iay's paper with an cxnIana-
lion OF he manner in which he was led 10 ACCEPT
a quotation made by another, in we!i-known
book, as an exact copy OF the original. We have
examined the book tiom which The extract was
made "Caopcr,s Political Et0pomp.' published al
Columbia (Sourh Carolina. in 1899; and the pa
ragraph as AriStaichlls Cuo;cs il. is exactly as lie
quoted it. in the body OF a long extract marked al
the beginning and end with quotation inarn>, anc
having at The close this credit, Thus far Dr..
Smith" On 4 closer examination, there seems
10 have been an in The printing. Tor. The pas
sace, though faithfully; copying Smiths scnti-
lacnts, contains occasional variations iroia his
exact words; and on turning Il PAGE or two back,
we fad that Or Cooper himself, III Introducing
series Of references 10 pahlic writer's, OF which
this is one, only undertook for general accuracy
not identity Of expression. Our correspondent
therefore must Stand acquitted ot any i";enion
10 Change the words which MIR. Rivcs shows It.
have been changed His laul, is that OF inadyer-
ience, in not recurring 10 The original before ap
plying such harsh terms, rs ~ must allow he did
imprudcDlly apply To the supposed reccadillu o.
Mr. Rives. He had substantial ground for accu-
sation against Mr.. Rivcs, without wasting the
strength Of his language Oh points tina, were i'm
material il well founded, and which lie wi;hdTaws
unconditonallv 2S uniouEded
aFor ourselves. therefore and 70: Arstarchns
Junr, we freely admit that the latter erred in i'm
putting 10 Mr.. l,vcs an alteration Of the text OF
Adam Smith III the sentence quoted. No person
has more cause To crieve for ID" error than the
writer OF Aris,archus; for, having an excellent
case against Mr.. Rives for a pcrverSion ot Adam
Smith bv suppression and miSdcscriptio3, he has
BY his heedlessncss enabled that gentleman 10
make personal issue in which he is in the right,
upon point not al all material to the main issue.
Mr. Rivcs ought TO be glad that the carelessncss
OF his reviewer has made him one point, which
ne had not before, upon which he can defend him.
self in this matter.
"The complaint against Mr. Rivcs is distinctly
tina, be made partial extract from Adam Smith,
and announced doctrine from il as Dr. Smths,
which, had he published the whole Of the para
graph, would have plainly appeared to be express
" combal;ed ana denied. He quoted Smiths state
Eleni, that protection may sometimes introduce 4
manufacture into a country 10 advantage, and
sooner than it would otherwise flourish; aud claim
ed this a limitation By the author Of his own prn-
cipcs of free trade Bu, the author stated the pro-
position only Tor the purpose of showing that it is
an apparcn, and partial, not 4 real and general
advantage; that the profit was TO the peculiar in
tercs,, and the effect, general loss; thus affirm
ing the opposite of the doctrine which MIR. Rives
drew from his selection of paragraph 10 copy
4 Il, &, ln ,p.ln
TO copy, but he did not copy The whole argument;
and he described ii unfaitllully.
"Thcsc are the true points in Tie case against
Mr.. Rives, and 10 them Arislarchus recalls him
before the public, with such documents as he can
no, dispute"
GEORGIA.