Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-02-01


ijzan. Mr.. Rutherford had stood alool from the
healed canvass II was not on political grounds
that Mr.. Rutherford was brought iorward-It
was on his past services and his pre-emlnent
qualifications Tor dischaIgnS The duties OF TINS
office. 10 the honor and welfare OF Virginia. why
then turn him ouf, and ill his place with another!
Mr.. l.. asked when the gentleman from Henilco
had ever been willing TO turn out good Uhis, 10
allow the voice Of the Democrats OF Virginia TO
be represented. Mr.. L. denounced the attempt
made TO violate the longeslablished custom OF
Virginia, by turning out able and competent ON
GERS, and putting in their place violent partizans
as reward for their political services.
Mr. McRAE of Fl. disclaimed being actuate,i
by desire TO reward MIR Daniel for his political
seryices-but because he thought him best quail
fed for this office Moreover, he thought the
Wings entitled 10 one of the Councillors-and on
this question he acted on principle.
Mr.. EDMUNDS Of Halifax had understood
MIR. Lacy 10 admit that Col. Rutherford had dis
charged his duties with ability and fidelity: that
M one was better qualified for this ofice-and that
Col. r. should be turned out because he was a
Democrat, and MIR. Daniel put in because he was
Wing. In the first time in our history, it had
been avowed in this House. that this office should
b. made political one, and faithful and able
officers prescribed. because OF their political OPT
mons. lie trusted tndt WIS House would not es-
tablish this fatal principle.
Mr. GARNETT replied 10 Mr. EdmuniS, and
alluded 10 The eviction OF Mr.. Wight
Mr. EDMUNDS explained his position, and
asserted that he (Mr. ED had voted for Mr..
Wight through several ballols-unlil il was GER
tainly asceItained that MIR. w. could not be
elected. Moreover, some years since, Mr.. +.
had voted for the reelection Of Mr.. Mcfarland,
the Wing Councillor, in opposition 10 Mr. Fl. A.
Garland, a Democrat until Mr.. Mactarand was
Withdrawn.
Mr.. DANIEL OF Prince George coniended
that Mr. Rutherford was better qualified for the
Office than Mr. Daniel, as the former had had
long experience, and was universally admitted TO
be highly qualified for this Office. He (Mr D..
OF P. g. had voted throughout for Mr. Wight
He now protested against this prescription.
Mr.. STROTI1ER, in high.hown terms, main
tanned the superiority of Mr.. Daniels claims over
Mr. Rulherloonl.
Mr.. VERIFY called the attention of the House
10 the session Of 1928, when he had nominated
John NJ. Gregory on the same grounds that
Col. Rutherford had been presented here. On
that occasion Nlessrs. Leake Of Goochland and
Edmunds Of Halifax had voted agains, Mr.. Gre
CORY "What is sass for the goose, is sass for The
gander." He contrasied the course Of gentlemen
then and now
Mr.. FULTON OF Wylhe never regarded this
office as political one and did not now regard
il so. Holding, therefore, this opinion, and being,
moreover hostile 10 prescription for opinions
sake, he could mol consent, on this occasion, TO
make it party question. Colonel X. was a
good and faithful officer, and though he voted
against personal and political friend with the
utmos, pain, he was constrained hy his sense OF
propriey and duty, 10 vote for the present incum-
bent.
Mr.. ANDERSON defended his position in the
cases Of Mr.. Patton and Mr. Wight He had
voted Tor both OF them and had himself nomi-
mated The latter. lie commended that BY neither
party had this Office been made a political one
Mr.. TAYLOR Of Norfolk Borough felt con-
strained by his sense of duty to vote against a
gentleman for whom he had the highest regard,
and OF whom he felt proud, as N!ginian, and
with whom he acted politically. He should pur-
sue nearly the same course as the gentleman
from Wythe. Mr.. T. said we should not only
talk OF doing justice, but we should do justice
Mr.. Rutherford was one of the purest men in
Virginia If all the Democrat, were like Col.
R., he (Mr T.) should come very near in
being Democrat, al least in name. Mr. T.
could not, would not vote against 4 gentleman,
and faithful officer, though he be Democrat,
when his Democracy did not interfere with the
discharge OF his duties. He thought his friend
Mr.. Daniel, would gain nothing by this Office
He thought il would Interfere with The political
advancement Of Mr.. Daniel, which he ardently
desired
Mr.. BROADUS Of Culpepcr hal always
thought that this was not political office. He
thought sonow. As the Democrats had changed
their ground, and had established the principle
that officers should not be turned on, for political
opinions, he appealed 10 his friends from New
II ILL Il
Mr.. Daniel
Mr.. LACY had nominated Mr.. Daniel on his
own authority and without consulting any one
Mr.. l.. then alluded 10 the relentless tyranny Of
the Democratic majority in the case of Mr.. Gre
CORY On another occasion, threats had been
made 10 turn out all the bascmentstory officers,
but The Democrats had been afraid The people
would not sustain them; they, therefore, had 10
back ont. He hoped gentlemen would, hereafter,
remember the doctrine now for the first time laid
down by the Democrats here that this office was
not political one. He, therefore. al the sugses-
ton of his valued ritn nd from Culpcper would
Withdraw Mr. Daniel
MIR. McRAE of Henrco, TO relieve his friends
from embarrassment, concurred in The withdrawal
of The name OF Mr.. Daniel.
MI. VERIFY rose 10 commend the high-mnded
and honorable conduct in Withdrawing Mr.. Da-
MEL. He hoped The Democrats would lean a
lesson to-day.
MIR GARNETT, in Justice 10 Mr.. Daniel,
stated that his name had been presented not at all
at the instance of Mr.. Daniel. He should, how
ever, vote for Mr.. ID.
Mr. FUNSTEN said, the past having been re-
ferred TO- he wished, for the benefit of future Lee
giSlaiurcs. 10 know whether The gentlemen from
Cnlpercr, Charles City and Henrco had with
drawn Mr.. Daniels name through Difference to
tDrmpr mr. hacn HOY, h.,
could not he elected.
Mr. BROADUS OF Culpcper, said the gentle
man from Warren and Clarke had no right to
calachi7c the motives Of members. and he should
not deign to respond.
Mr.. WlTCHER had some time since wish
ed 10 get The floor 10 appeal TO gentle
men TO withdraw Mr.. Daniel; but since The
Wings had been taunied with weakness, he hoped
that some gentleman would again put Mr. Daniel
in nomination. Mr. w. then went un to show.
that heretofore, the Democrats deserved no credit
for their bearing in the cases of Messrs Patton
and Gregory. He hoped The Wings would stand
firm, and resent the insults, thrown at them, By
casting their votes Tor the man they preferred
Mr. COOKE thought Mr.. Daniel a gentleman
of superior abilities 10 those OF MIR. Rutherford.
His constituents were Of the same opinion. He.
therefore. should nominate Mr.. Daniel again
In putting ont Mr. Rutherford, he would no!
suffer in pccuniary point OF view. Ii Mr.. Dan.
ie be put in, he would be bcnefted in the same
view
Mr. LACY said, that if there was a Wing in
the House, who would not support Mr. Daniel,
since the Wings had been tainted with impro-
per motives in Withdrawing him. he would vii.
linsly lei said Wing take up his ha, and walk
out OF their party.
Mr.. PRESTON had been unwilling 10 see This
made party question; but since the ground taken
BY the other side, he iet bound 10 meet The issue.
He had TO unltindness towards Mr.. Rutherford;
but since The opposite party had made the issue,
heappeaed TO the Wings 10 stand firm and to try
their power, as their magnanimity had been oil
no avail.
Mr. FUNSTEN said, that in propoundinp
the question which had caused so much excite
men' he had acted alone, without consultation
with any individual, and the Democratic party
were in no wise responsible, nor was The remark
applied 10 the Wing party generally but 10 those
gentlemen who had charged The Democratic par
" with represensibe inconsistency He alone ,,.s