Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-08-18
Messrs. Bolziuo and B0cOck.

In justice to Mr.. Boiling, against whom the
Democratic press have been more venomous than
any other man, we publish, from the Lynchburg
Virgnian, sketch of the remarks made by him
at Campbell Court House in discussion with
his competitor, Mr.. Bocock. The Lynchburq
Republican, South Side Democrat and other pa.
pers, have assaied Mr.. Boiling with great bitter
ness for his course in the Legislature at the time
of the memorable agitation produced by the South.
ampton insurrection. Mr. Boiling then took the
same ground with the Richmond Enquirer, edi-
ted by Thomas Richie, the Richmond Wing
edited by John Hampden Peasants, and with Jas
Mcdowell, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Wm
Ballard Preston and many other prominent men,
None of these have been prescribed for their
conduct on that occasion but Mr.. Boiling is sin
gled out Of the whole number as the object of de-
nunciation. Worse than this, he is abused usoue
ad nausean, whilst we hear no syllable of dissats-
faction witha certain Col. George W. Thompson,
who is the regular candidate of the Dem ocratic
party in the Wheeling district. This Colonel
Thompson was, winter before last, the caucus
nominee of the Democrats in the Legislature,
for the office of First Auditor from which
they had determined to depose Mr.. James E.
Heath But a rumour got into circulation that
he had once made an anti-savery fourth of July
speech, and the caucus dropped him. In the
debate that took place in the House, at the cleo
ton, damning document was Produced dis
closing the fact that Thompson, before his re-
moval from Ohio into Virginia. had spoken and
written OF slavery in terms as revolving as were
ever used by anAAbolitionist of the blacklist dye.
The Democrats endeavoured to clear their skirts
as well as they could of the odum Of supporting
him, by protesting that had they known he had
ever uttered such sentiments they would have
suffered their right arms, tongues and heads to be
cut of before they would have consented to vote
for him. The mali by which Col. Thompson ex-
pected to hear of his appointment carried him the
sad intelligence of his sudden reputation by the
whole Democratic party. Il was then though
that his tender sympathies for 'the noble blacks''
had sunk him to the profoundest depth of pot-
cal oblivion. But Col. Thompson is a man who
is fully determined that his light shall not be hid
under bushel. He is now busily canvassing
his district as a candidate for Congress, and the
Democratic press is perfectly mute in regard to
his Aboiionst antecedents.
We refer to Col. Thompsons case merely TO
show how Inconsistent Democratic Journals are
when they attack Mr.. Boiling for his formeropin-
ions on the subject of slavery. Our readers will
ind that his views upon this subject, so far as
Congress has to do with it, are entirely sound He
believes that the South should take its stand on
the maintenance of the Fugitive law; but Mr..
Bocock, and politicians of his school, ridicule the
idea OF dissolving the Union for few runaway
negroes. Mr.. Boiling holds that State has the
right to sece de from the Union, when the Con-
stitution has been clearly violated to her injury.
that she must expect to sustain her secession
by force OF arms. Mr. Bocock, i: he be seces.
sionist Of the South Carolina stamp-and we pre-
sumo from his affiliations that he acknowledges
the right of a State TO withdraw from the Union
at her own pleasure, with or without cause. The
dnlerence between the two doctrines is of the
greatest practical Importance. If South Carolina,
for example, were 10 secede for causes now ex-
listing, which Mr.. Bocock does not himself con-
slider sufficient, he would not regard the insuAi
| cheney OF the causes as impairing the sancty of
her right to secede; and if the President sbonld
continue to execute the Federal laws in South
Carolina, Mr.. Bocock would justify her resistance
to the Federal officers, and would give her all
the aid and comfort he could. Mr.. Boiling, On
the other hand, believing, like Mr.. Bocock, that
South Carolina has no just ground for secession,
would consider the President bound to execute the
laws according to his oath of Office. In one word
Mr. Bocock places the preservation 0: this Union
at the discretion of each several State; Mr.. Boil
ling rests it upon the intrinsic justice and consttu
tlonal legality Of .thes measures Of the govern
ment
The important distinction between these oppo-
siie doctrines is well illustrated by the somewhat
famous article published in the Washington Globe,
in the autumn of 1888. to explain away, as far as