Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-12-03
THE CLERK OF TIE HOUSE.


The Wing press have seized upon every e1pe-
diem, to sacrifice Mr French, the able, couHf-
Gus and interchangeable clerk oil The House OF Rep
rescnlalives. A lew days will decide whether
they will be able 10 bring into the party traces
few refractory membcrs--and 10 do this, and
to make as iar a showing as possible before
the public they have recently held up as a
prelext for the removal OF Mr.. French his false.
Iy supposed prescription OF Young man IN
his employment. The New York Tribune is
mos, feroeions in It's attacks upon MIR. French
blu. lis lips are completely sealed BY The follow
ing statement in The New York Sun, neuIral.-
II MIR. F. is 10 I've armed out bow much more
manly would il be 10 avow political motives as
the true course, instead oil trumping up false and
miserable "pre,eYls," which Mr.. Webster seems
TO hold in such sincere horror!
Before giving The Suns article, we must avow
our great curiosity 10 know what course The no
parry" Wing Taylor members Of Congress vii
pursue ON the election of Clerk. They profess an
adherence OF party violence and prejudice, and
regard for the honesty and capacity of candidates
alone. No one doubts The perfect fitness OF Mr.
French Tor the Office of Clerk-and eshall socn
know, whether these mo parry" professions OF The
Taylor Wings are not all hollow and false. "By
their irniis ye shall know them"-and, il The Tay-
lor Wings in Congress vote for The expulsion o.
French, The veil will be rent and The people will
see, in all its naked dctormity. The insncerity and
deceit Of mo parry" professions But 10 The Suns
notice
Mr.. French AND THE "TRIBuEE. THE asser.
lion that MT French Qhe efficient Clerk OF The
House oil Representatives. had removed Wing
assistant from office having been thoroughly dis
proved, we shall now direct The attention OF the
Tribune 10 another fact. MIR. March, one Of The as
sociate editors of the Ir,bunc, has brother, all
over Wing, in the Treasury Department who
has held Office for period OF years. We believe
since 1889 or 1910. Mr. Polk, with all his al
legged ferceness OF prescription, retained Mr..
March, Notwithstanding The many appeals for
his removal. And why? Simply because he IS
an honest and faithful officer like Mr.. French,
possessing those Jeffersonian qualifications which
men OF all parties recognize as shield against
pany prescription. Looking al these facts,
with others that nigh, be cled, il appears
10 us that The hitherto anti proscriptive TIT
Ipnc should be less rude in is ,hrusis a, faith
ful public servants who cannot endorse lis pecu-
liar views. AT all events, as one Of lis own edi-
tors has most satisfactory evidence Of The tole-
rance OF its political opponents, we cannot see
any consistency in It's clamors for The removal OF
young man who, By The faithful performance OF
his duly, during the short period be has been in Of
flee, has won the respec! and ec'eem oil every
member Of Congress, without distinction OF par
~. Unable to nssail MIR. French as public obi
Ger and private citizen, bis enemles were dIlGsn
TO the desperate effort Of gellirg up charge Of
prescription against him. That has iailei. The
iacls in The case prove that The young man, al
legged 10 have been removed, was appointed by
Mr.. French, and was retained in Office by MIR.
French as long as he wished 10 remain. So
much for that miserable fabrication. What next
60 they propose 10 bring up against Mr.. French