Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-02-26
r. az E.,,itars nf he Eraatrer,

Wings of the General Assembly, and III SOME
measure contrast me with them. Silenee Oh my
part might be construed into appreciation Oh lhe
contrast, and hence the necessity mat snou'd 4
speak and say that do not approve, anu ;ma ,be
deem il unjust. You are wholly mistaken III Tue
superstition, that there was any "cquivocatinS or
"dodsins" in the resolutions adopted by .he
Wings. and lost between the two Houses. Inc
men TO whom the management Of the question
was conlided, are men moi capable OF "equivoca-
ting" or "dodging" and The resolutions expressed,
know fully and distinctly the opinions consci,
entiousIy entertained by the party as a party, ana
truly, it cannot be said that men "dodge" or equi-
vocate" because they express fully the opinions
they do entertain, and do not profess opinions
which really they do not entertain. Some Oh Inc
Wings in The Legislature. numbering among lhem
some Of the ablest, entertain the opinion that an
nexaion by Joint resolution is constitutional, but
large portion, perhaps the larger portion ofthem,
do not concur in that opinion and, therefore, Inc
resolutions properly affirm all that the party as
party, concurred in, leaving untouched The CUES
ton upon which they did not concur submit,
that so far from lodging or equivocaling, this was
candid and fair. What other course could cpur-
sued? Is il not always, and necessarily the case
in party action that the sentiment Of the majority
prevails, unless il requires The minority 10 affirm
something which they believe TO be untrue? This
is all that party minority can claim, and, unfor-
tunately, as you know, even this claim is some
times denied.
Whatever my opinions about Texas may be,
therefore, | protest. respectfully that NO inference
should be drawn from them to the injury of my
Wing friends. want nothing over any Wing,
nor in truth, over any one else; for want no Of
flee or place OF any kind, but especially am I'M
willing to appear in contrast with and as in any
way superior TO, men who are more able lar than
l. and perfectly upright.
The rules OF party warfare know admit OF the
mode of fighting which you have adopted, Tor both
sides resort 10 il; and you, know, design me no
personal unkindness in it; on the contrary, ! am
grateful for the personal kindness which receive
al your hands but in thus conducting the hight
YOU do injustice to my friends, and do me an lnJu-
| nv JAMES LYONS.
Feb. %, 1915.
l. was not our desire TO do injustice to the
Wing Party, nor injury 10 Mr.. Lyons. We
smoke OF his resolutions and of their course pre-
csely as We thought Of bolh-ihat the one was
direct and manly-the other lodging and equivo-
eating. he went directly TO its object-They pro-
fsssing to go up 10 the same object, dodgcd, in
fact, the issue, and thus they looked one way, and
rowed The other. Mr.. Lyons shows himself to
be the decided friend OF Texas as he processes 10
be. He adopts The only means that are calculated
10 effect that object. He goes openly for the ac-
QUESTION, and boldly asserts that it is constitutional
10 accomplish il by joint resolution o! Congress.
| They, on the contrary profess 10 be the friends
OF Annexation, and yet adopt the only means
that can defeat it-by refusing 10 take ground,
which would compel one oflheir Senators TO carry
out the wishes they profess, or resign in favor OF
some Texas Wing, whom both parties would
have united in elcctng 10 his place. He would
have proposed resolutions which would have
,rLI Oh m OH MI cppurpl
one vote in the Senate OF The United States for
Texas-lhe very vote, perhaps, which might be
necessary 10 secure the acquisition. They held
that vote in the palm of their hands-and they
refused to command it for the very cause which
they had protested desire 10 promote. True,
they found it very convenient and patriotic TO APP
pear in the eyes of the people the friends OF Tex
as They did not wish 10 incur The odium oil APP
pearing hostile, or even indifferent-but when
they are asked TO confirm their professions by
their acts they turn very adroilly around and kick
over the whole pail of milk. Thus they have
The appearance of being in favor Of Texas, but
they take good care 10 consult their party feelings
by "forbearing" TO express any opinion on the con.
SiilHti0nal question! In a word he would have
done something for The cause 10 which he was at
tached. They would have done nothing, whilst
they prolessed such desire 10 promote it. His
course was direct and efficient Theirs was but
IL HoIhNl cpiIHSInS Oul Va PoItt SoH'iaSiuaoH'j
to which Mr.. Lyons had risen superior. II their
course, then, be not lodging and equivocaling, we
should like 10 know how there can be any dodg-
ing or equivocaion in politics.
MIR. Lyons, however, attempts 10 clear them
from the impeachment, by pleading, that the
Wings Of the Legislature acted as Il party-and
as party, they acted by majority OF their parry;
and, therefore, leaves us 10 infer, that they stand
justified in tic eyes OF their country for not march
ing up directly 10 the object, and not redeeming
their own professions. But this vindicalion in.
wolves two distinct questions-one, question OF
taet-and the other, question OF principle.
Is it a fact, that a majority Of the Wing party
| in The House deemed the Joint Resolution uncon-
stitu,ional? We do not understand Mr.. Lyons
as positively asserting even this fact On the
contrary, his language seems TO incline the o;her
way. He says "a large portion, pcrl0ps the larger
poriion of them do not concur in the opinion OF
some Of the ahest among Them, that il was con-
slilntional." Perhaps The larger portion OF them
were not Of that opinion2 But perhaps they
were and the probability was as much in
the ono scale as was in The other. AT all events,
they thc lodging Whgs) took especial care not
TO ascertain the fact as far as the public are adj
vised for, they had lodged that question when
It was fairly put at them in The House. When
Mr. Edmunds proposed the resolution they blink
ed the question, and rushed 10 an adjournment
rather than have it decided We are advised;
however that the very ahlest OF their leaders (and
no party bows more implicitly to its leaders than
they do, from the great Champion in Kentucky
down to the bellwethers in The city Of Richmond)
were in favor Of The Consutionality OF Browns
resolulions-such men, for example, as Wiichcr,
| Preston Taylor of Norfolk Strother &c. If they
| had come forth in all their strength in favor OF
the principle, insteau of leaving the argument
in the hands of the inferior orators i'll the Sc
nate, We should probably have seen much the
charger portion" of the Wings voting with the
Democrats of the House, and carrying the rcsolu-
ton and controlling the vote OF Mr.. Rives, or
substituting Texas Senator in his place, andt thus
! pobably securing the annexation OF country
which they so much protested to desire What
then is the fact disclosed by their proccedinss!-
Isl. That majority OF the Wings themselves
might have been in favor OF the constitutionality
Of the resolution-and 81. The undispued fact,
that decided majority of the House was in
favor of the proposition. Then the question is,
how far the Wing party should have suffered
themselves 10 be led astray from the great OBJ
ject they protessed to have in view, because
a portion of them either less or larger than
a majority, but certainly less than MAORI
| ty of the whole House, was against course
| of action which was necessary 10 carry out
the wishes OF the people Of Virginia This
question, then, brings up the great Principe,
whether, on great measure like this, which
Mr.. Lyons admits 10 be so essential TO
the interests of our country-to defeat the in
trignes Of the Abolitioniss, and 10 secure TO the
United States the magnificent region OF Texas
the Wings should have acted as a party, against
a majority of the House itself, as we'll as de-
cided majority of the people? Arc the Wings so
parly-mad so devoted 10 mere party purposes,
that they are willing TO sacrifice their country 10
the unity Of their party? What species of par
ty, then, are they? What would the world say,
if all the Wings in the Senate of the U. States
were 10 proceed upon the same princples.if. act
ing as party, Messrs Henderson, and Merrick,
and Foster, and Johnson, should refuse TO vote for
their country, and should determine TO gowith their
party, because they had ascertaincd that "large
portion, or perhaps the larger portion" Of the