Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-12-01
rnE n1SCIrSSION-


Messrs Bocock and Leake of the Democratic
nomination, led off at the African Church Friday
evening We were detained from the discussion,
by other engagements, until Mr.. Leake was clos
ing his first speech, and we found him perora-
tionizng about State rights. From all we could
hear, the two efforts fell perfectly harmless on
the Wing portion Of the audience.
Mr.. H, P. Irving, under the arrangement adopt
ed, spoke an hour and u quarter. His remarks
were characterized by great candour and liberalty,
and his arguments were strong and pointed. He
brought up Col. Johnson's vote for the Oregon
bill, and Mr.. Leake's comment uponthat measure
together with Mr.. Calhoun's. He condemned the
Democratic ticket for their position with regard
to Internal Improvements, their advocacy of the
right of Secession, and the opposition of Messrs
Johnson and Leake in Congress to the bill for the
| relief of the Irish. To show how little the De-
mocracy are entitled to claim that they are the
| true opponents Of Virginia doctrines, he adduced
the statement of the Democratic paper published
at Woodstock in the Tenth Legion, representing
that Mr.. Leake in his speech there, vindicated the
Democratic party from the charge of holding the
doctrine Of secession.
Mr.. Leake rejoined for half an hour, and proved
himselfa very glib popular speaker, expert at
little hits, but possessed of little commanding
force He acknowledged that he "split" with
Coz. Johnson the Oregon bill, but defended the
Colonel by arguing that Mr. Irving would have
voted equally wrong by voting for the admission
of California. with constitution prohb biting
slavery. He tire w in as make weight the fac
that many ofthe Wings voted for the war bill, al.
though they objected to the preamble asserting
that the war was commenced by the act of Mexi-
co. AS to the Woodstock speech, he denied the
correctness of the editors report, and said tina
he spoke full hour in defence of the doctrine o
State sovereignty, which he maintained carried
with it the right of secession.
Mr.. Irving replied briefly, under the disadvan
tage of speaking at a very late hour He showed
most clearly that the admission of California was
wholly dissimilar to an act pro viding govern
ment for Oregon. In one case, the people in their
sovereignty cfose to prohibit slavery; in the Other
Congress undertook to prohibits it; and Col. John
son sanctioned the constitutionality of the ac1
| by voting for the bill AS to the war bill, too
the case was entirely different. The preamb le
merely asserted that to bea fact which the Wings
denied; there was no question of constitutionaity
involved, as in the case of the Oregon bill. Mr.
l. answered forcibly other points of Mr.. Leake's
reply, but we are compelled to close this Sigh
notice. Suffice it to say, that we think Mr.
Leake and his colleag ue-candidate made no argu-
ment which tended to disprove one emphatic rel
mark of the former, viz:that no Wing of Richmond
can be expected to vote for Democrat. The
Spartan Band" needed no squirting up; they are
always ready for an election. Aad as the Wings
confessedly were not to be influenced, the dis
cussion, of course, was of little avail to the De-
mocratc party.