Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1850-02-20

F0the Editors ofths speetator..-Whilst a

your opinions, lTegret t15 spirit ana temper mani
tested by you in your LAST editorial, against "Re
! FORM" The only object Of MY first number wa:
TO elicit rorn you clear and precise expression o.
your opinions on subject Of grave importance.
certainly did hot intend To arouse your ire or TO dis
iurb your dignity. have most exalted opinion
of The benefits arising from the freedom and impair
tiaity of the press, and in availing myself Of that
channel to call forth your sentiments Upon great
public question, had no idea of mourning the dis
pleasure of the Editors, OF drawing upon my hum
be head their keen invective. Your tcitTtng sdr-
cay,n is much deprecated, not on my own account,
but for fear your readers may take up the Impres-
sion that you still seek obscury, rather than per
spicuiiy Or thst YOU wish escape from the awk.
ward position into which yrjur doubling and incon-
, 'sisent course had involved YOU, by waking up q
false issue. Altogether hfprettnding, trust ain
.crlic" enough 10 detect aud expose timid, waiv-
enng vascillaiing course, on the part of the con.
duciors of public Journal and # necessary, 10 call
them FORTH in order that the public may know their
true position.
Whether al have been strangely uninfdImed, or
strangely misnormed in regard 10 material facts,
will perhaps appear in the sequel. In your last ed
ioral you say-"We confess ourselves amazed at
the pretermission by Reform of the warm views
presented by us in favor Of Conven'on-of the
nigh, and capacity of the people for self govern
ment-of the prcpriety of extending the right OF
suffiage, and Of electing The Governor by the peo
pie; and still more surprised at the inmation, or
implication, that on these points We had pufposey
remained SILENT" ,.
You have wholly misunderstood Reform ~
There is no charge by ''intimation Or implication"
that YOU had purposely remained silent upon either
of the poi,t.s Of reform, referred 10 in your para
graph. You might have seen, however much your
Sperceptions were obscured by d0sy influence"
that the single object and purpose Of Reform, was
to get your upirions On two ponfsfirst, as to the
mode Of eleciing the Judges and Secondly, what
should be their tenure Of office. No other paints
were referred to-none others discussed and yet
you seem TO rely upon the fact, that you had made
known your opinions upon minor points of reform,
about which there is no diversity ii opinion, as re-
eving you from all obligation TO express your opin-
ions upon points Of graver moment.
The simple issue between US, and the only one
ever intended TO be raised is whether you had up 10
the pennng Of your las, editorial, made known thro'
the columns of your paper, your opinions upon The
two points referred to, to witt Tile mode Vi elect
ing Judges, and the tenure Of Office. In your last
editorial You say "In regard to the Judges Of the
Superior Courts, we confess our difficulties IN ar
irving at the proper appointing power" Again
sin the midst Of these difficulties, in arriving at
conclusion satisfactory 10 ourselves, we supposed
modest apology, 10 say the least, would be found,
&c." Again. Although the question, 10 our mind
is not vel free from embarrassment" And then
follows, after speaking Of the tenure Of Office, the
distinct avowal Of opinion for The first time made
hy YOU, that it is expedent for the people 10 exer
else The appointing power In speaking OF the
Judges, you say, 1--WE should not oppose their cleo
ton by popular vote"
II is clear from these extracts, that you had form
ed no opinion upon this point. until you had penned
wur last edit al II is impossible, therefore. that
"Reform" could have had knowledge of that
which did not exist at the time he wrote his article.
In your editorial Of the 10th of January, you took
no definite position either Of the points Of enquiry.
No Thread Of argument was pursued toa conclusion;
and certainly no opinions are expressed. II they were
formed. Had that article been penned with de-
sign 10 conceal your opinions, it could not have been
better adapted 10 that object.
Again, on The 9th Of January, you say-"We
admit the right ofthe pc ple 10 elect all oficers,from
the Governor down to the Tip staff of Court, if
they think proper to do so. But would it he expe-
dient Z"
Aqain--"The right to alter or abolish their form
of government embraces all rights. Having once
determined 10 alter or abolish, every question which
can thereafter arise whether in regard 10 the char
acter of the new government, the various depart
ments, distribution of powers, offices and officers,
with their mode IF appointment, all involve matters
of erpedicncy, and not Of right"
Here you are admitting that the elective power,
of right belongs to the people, butyou are denying,
or doubling al least, the expediency Of their exer
csing that right; when in your last, you, for the
first time, declared that ytu would not oppose an
..elec,on by popular vote" What new lights
have bursted upon yotir vision2 How is it that
that which was inexpedient on the 9Th Of January,
becomes altogether proper and expediel on the 18Th
of February? So much for sitting. sl
But again-In most of your editorials, except the
last, you express great danger from popular cleo
tons--that The Judges would not be able to face
the popular breeze, and when elected by The peo-
pie, would carry with Them upon the bench their
sy,npalhies and prejudces. II you really appre-
hpnded this danger, why have you consented TO an
election by the people, as you have distinctly done
in your last? Why have you done that very thing
from which all the predicted mischief was to HOW
And again-On the 30th Of January, in speaking
of the County Justices, you say, Indeed IS very
questionable whether the higher tribunals, with the
superior learning and legal attanments of their off
Gals. have ever given as much satisfaction id pop
uar sense, or filled up the measure Of their juris;
dciion with nearer approaches 10 rig tand justice"
Apain-"Asa class, The County Justices may ia
vorably compare with any for integrity and general
intelligence" Again--''It is evident, then, that
the growing dissatisfaction with the County Courts
is not traceable to the incapacity, inefciency. or
doubtful character of the Justices themselves, nor
10 dissatisfaction with tie decisions Of those ancient
tribunals"
From these quotations, it would seem that you
have much mure exalted opinion of the County
Justices, than you have ofthe higher Judges Yet;
in the very same Article, you have declared your
opinions more clearly than you have upon any 9th
er, in favor Of total change in the tenure ofthe Of
flee Of Justices, while You oppose any essential
v';---s: The office of the Judge. "RefoIm" ask;
ed you 10 exps1u rrusUU TOT Ine dlstInctlen you
had drawn. You declined answering the question,
saying you had already done so. Let you readers
say whether you have not swept from under you the
only foundation resting in principle, on which you
can rely TO support the tenure Of good behavior, or,
in other words, the LIE tenure in the higher Judges,
so warmly advocated by you.
Perhaps have occupied more of your space than
the public importance Of the subject demandedi
now unders!and that you are opposed to an "Elec-