The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-06-21
THE SOUTHERN PRESS,
CITY OF WASHINGTON.
FRIDAY, JUNE 81, 1850.
The Richmond Enquirer.

No paper which has noticed the appear
ance of the Southern Press, has treated it
with more hostility than the Richmond
Enquirer. This has filled us with surprise
and regret; for we entertained the kindest
personal sentiments for the Editor of the
Enquirer, and admired the spirit and energy
with which he contended some time ago for
the rights of the South. 1t is true that we,
in common with many of his other friends,
had witnessed with sorrow his departure from
the high position he then assumed, but we
knew there were allowances to be made,
and palliations- hoped that he would
return
We cannot, however, permit his structures
on tliis paper to pass without response; and
that no injustice be done, we have inserted
his attack of June 10, in our columns to-
day.
His first objection is, that this is to be
strictly sectional paper, and its inevitable
tendency will be the "formation of parties
co-incident with geographical Ines" against
the mischiefs of which the fathers Of the
Republic, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,
and Jackson, have most earnestly warned
their countrymen."
Now, no man knows better than the
Editor of the Enquirer, that sectional parties
are already formed, for he himself but few
days since, in referring to his visit to this
city, stated that he. witnessed the votes of
these sectional parties continually in Con-
gress, even on questions Of order. Are we
then to be charged with tendency" to
cause that which already before VIGOROUSLY
existed9 or is the South, which is now the
object Of an avowed and outrageous sectional
assault, not to defend herself and her institu-
tons thus attacked, lest she incur the re-
proach Of sectonaism? The Southern Adj
dress in favor Of this paper, proposes it as
one means of "self-defence under the Union
and Constitution and the Edito: Of the
Enquirer is compelled to admit that the
only number he had seen contained general
(not sectional) truths; yet, instead Of giving
US credit for that, he complains that they are
general, and yet condemns this paper for its
sectional tendency! Does any man in his
senses now expect that the South will lie
defended at the North3 And if her defence
rests upon herself, is she to be intimidated
from doing it on the principles Of the Con-
stitution, to avoid the imputation of sec
tionalsm? And that proceeding from party
editor, who tells US that he says this for the
sake Of his party, Of party the great body
Of which, as well as Of the other party at the
North, are now engaged in assaultng the
South!
The next objection Of the Enquirer is,
that members Of Congress ought not to con-.
duct or control newspapers, anfhe assumes
throughout his article that the Southern mem
bers who proposed this paper will control
and conduct it. Now what reason has he
for this assumption 1t is warranted by
nothing in the address of those members or
in the Prospectus, nor in any agreement or
understanding between the editors and those
gentlemen. This paper is founded on the
subscriptions and advertisements it receives,
and it is conducted and controlled exclusively
by the editors whose names stand at the
head Of its columns. No member of Con-
gress has advanced dollar, or has agreed
to do SO, or is expected to do so. A few Of
them offered to guarantee each certain
number of subscribers, but that was not
acted on.
The Editors of this paper presume they
were invited to take charge Of it from gem
eral knowledge of their opinions, and the En-
quirer must have seen by this time that they
don't pretend to utter such sentiments only
as have the concurrence of all the members
who united in recommending the paper.
We confer with them and with many others
with pleasure, but would as soon think OF
prescribing their course in Congress as Of
having our course prescribed by them.
No paper could be established on more
legitimate and independent principles than
this--and thus perishes the second objection
of the Enquirer. But if this paper were
under the control Of any association of per-
sons formed for common object, it could
not be at the worst, more embarrassed as to
particular propositions about which the mem
bers disagreed, than the Enquirer now is
on the great question Of the day.
The Enquirer itself is local, yes and sec
tional. For such is the fate Of editors and
papers, and all other things Of this world,
that they have to be in some place. The
L. Il.