Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1851-11-12
TllE RICHMOND ENQUIRER

Copies an innocent little story we told
some weeks since, about very little man
and very little steamboat-both yclept
"JoE JouNsoN" -and prefaces the re-pub-
lication with the following very little re-
marks:
Small as is this attack of the Times upon
Col. Johnson, the Stanton Spectator Is
guilty of still more diminutive and ridicu-
lous oectioneering game. As the surest
means of notifying this rampant aad
over-zealous assailant of Colonel Johnson,
we give his whole article in full as follows"
To commence at the tail end ofthe above
paragraph We would remark that the publ
cation of our ,chole article obviated the ne
cessity Of giving it ia fuN. The coolest
charity ought to have spared us the double
modification. There is certainly nothing
very notifying in the republication of the
anecdote, unless it be the fact that it makes
its second appearance in the columns ofthe
Richnaona Enquirer; and any that we may
have experienced from that circumstance
is sweetened by the hope, that many an
honest Democrat will read the story of the
Virginia Congressman and the Potomac
craft, who would, otherwise, never have pos
sessed any just conception of Little JoE
JoANsoN's' dimensions. We beg here, to
disavow any intention of ridiculing the Coils
size. We know not whether the owner of
the little steamer christened it "Joe John
SON. after Col. JosEpu JOHNSON of Virgin
la, intellectually considered, or Little JOE
JOHNSON, Of HARRISON" physically consid-
cred. The most natural inference would be
that he was struck with the likeness as to
size, in both particulars, and named his boat
accordingly. Certainly, it is just as strik-
ing in the one case as the other.
The Editors of the Enquirer are pleased
to term us "a puny assailant of Col. JoHN-
SON Strange that the Napoleon of the
Locofoco press, should deem it necessary
to draw his sword Well, Little JOE
JOHNSON is a puny antagonist; and no very
vigorous assault is necessary to upset him.
With all Difference to the Enquirer's attain
nents in political warfare, we submit that it
is useless to bring out the blunderbuss when
pop-gun will answer the purpose. We
have the documents TO prove that even the
sparrow with his bow and arrow may bring
down the little cock robin. When occa-
sion requires, however, We can hurl slug,
from gun Of large calibre, as we shall pro-
coed to show in the next paragraph:
The Editors of the Enquirer are the last
persons in the world who ought to arraign
us for the pc. petration of electioneering
trickery. In the very number of their pa
per from which we quote the above extract,
we find long article from the Southside
Democrat, in which GEORGE w. SUMMERS
is denounced as al abolitionist, on the evil
dcnce of speech delivered in 1882 in ia
yor of gradual emancipation. Now we would
ask ifthe Enquirer does not know this charge
Of abolitionism against Mr.. SUMMERS to be
NOT merely "a diminutive and contempti-
bic electioneering game"-but miserable,
malicious and baseless libel? IF it is not,
then some of the brightest luminaries in the
Democratic party have been abolitlonists of
the deepest dye. THOMAS JEFFERSON, the
Magnus Apollo of their party; JAMES Nc
DowELL, Governor of Virginia, elected by
their party; VIM. H, RoANE, a distinguish
ed member oftheir party, and THOMAS JET
PERSON RANDOLPH, of Albemarle, wko fig
ured conspicuously, but few weeks since,
in the Convention Of their party, all favor
ed the emancipation of slaves in 1872
The Enquirer does not urge this foul charge
against Mr.. SUMMERS, ed,torially: and why?
We opine it is because THOS. RlTCHlE,
their own venerable father, wrote editorials
in 1892 urging the adoption Of some plan
of emancipation as warmly as GEORGE W.
SUMMERS ever did in his speeches. The
stand taken by the Enquirer at that day, on
this subject, called forth from NATHAN a.
LExANDER, a Senator from Mecklenburg,
the following note
9th Janury, 1882.
.gIessrs. Editors Owing to the late pub
LEGATIONS in your paper, advising The gradual
emancipation of our Slares, you will discon-
tinue sending the Enquirer to my Post Of
flee, and consider me no longer subscri-
Der to a paper so reckless in its course, and
so regardless of the safety and property of
Others. Yours, &c,
NATH. ALEXANDER.
Messrs. RITCmE s Cook, Eds. Eng.
The people of Mecklenburg held meet
ing at subsequent date, and sustained their
Senator's views in reference to Mr.. RITCnIE
and emancipation.
The Editors of the Enquirer twill not say
that they (thc extracts from SUMMERS
seeech) prove him to be an abolltionist in
the commonly received acceptation of the
term" because if they should say so the
extracts from Thomas RITcHIE's editorials
would mark him with the same odious brand.
But they are guilty of that which is far more
Afraid 10 use the thing them
selves, they are endeavoring 10 blacken the