Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-12-05

Tuesday devotcs nearly columns 10 the history OF The
action Of Mr. Summers in the Legislature oi 1886, on The
subject we are now upon 1t commences by vndcang the
soundness of Mr. Summers although representing him as
unable to declare that Congress would under no clrcum
whatever be competent 10 aoosh slavery In the
Distrct"-and it quotes Mr. Summers speech at lha,
time, in which tho following passage appears:
This Mr. s. said the honest conviction of his mind,
upon the reflection which he had been able besow
upon the subject So far from regreng that he had found
comparatively but few concdlng with him in the vote on
this question rejoiced that large majority Of the
House entertained the opposite opinion. He grathed
that the voice of the Legislature would go forth denying the
poper Without quail cdtion as it might better check
the attempted exercise OF such power This he trusted
the true construction, and his own wronr; butt upon the
oas hic zoe had taken to support the Constitution each
OF us must construe 1t according 10 the best lights oil his
own judgment, Pursuing this he said he had been unable
TO adopt any other conclusion than that which he had sta
ted"
Here Mr. s. clearly declares that he is prevented by his
solemn oath from voting for proposition like Mr. Milers,
denying the power without qualification" Here Col.
Meredith and the Times might have soppedbut they 60
farther and attempt show that Mr. S. did actually vote
for such proposition-thereby violating his "oah,"
cording TO his declaration Such is the discredabe
attitude in which ME- SUMMERS placed by his triends
The Times goes on and only contends that Mr. Sum-
mers was merely against Mr. Mllers resolution as
an amendments but, proclaims exultingly that Mr. ). hna
y voted for the resolutions WHOLE and consequently
for Mr Mllers resolution. 1t finds this remarkable ac
not in the official Journal but the columns of the Enqui-
When COL Meredith trumphanty rolled out this hna
of Mr. Summers for Mr.. Mles resolution MIR. Scott
promptly and properly denied its correctness, and
vouched the official Journal in which no such vote ap-
pearcd He said that the report in the Enquirer was EVIL
denty wrong for it was utterly disproved by the official
cord.
Since the discussion we have examined the file of the
Enquirer and find that as the Times says, the following
appears in the reports
The questions then occurring on the Preamble and Resou
ons amended the ayes and ordered motion
of Mr. Sanard, and the taken as follows: Ayes
loS noes ~ Among The ayes were MessTs Gime south
p and Stanad were Messrs Craig Mullcn GAR
LAND OF NJ, Wiley Morgan Shands and Leyburn-7
On turning the Journal however, we find that the En-
quirers report is corect-tha vote taken on The
of resolutions amended but that the vote above
quoted upon the amended preamble which changed
into a resolution. So that COL NJ. and the Times are
Summers did not for Mr.. Mlers resou-
ton any me-and original position is entirely cor
rect, Wis that Mr.. S. voted, with minority OF Is against
Mr. Allers resolution The Times must admit note, that
Mr.. Summers was not $50 in his desire to take
strong Southern action and does not stand upon platform
whose srong enough bear the Shareholders
Of Virginia and their best interests"
The argument OF Col NJ. and the Times proves loo much
is like the famous pleas Of the lawyer whose client was
charged with breaking borrowed copper kee That the
kettle was not borowed-next, that was not broken
and lastly that it was broken when it borrowed Mr.
Summers at least ought 10 thank for having vindicaed
him from violation of his "oath support the constitu
,on which Col NJ and the Times found necessary to his
defence.
Mr. Scott made manly, able and interesting argument
to the great qualification OF his friends