Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1851-10-22

o. Some weeks ago, the Rockingham
Register propounded to us series of five
questions, with a view to elicit our opinions
on the topics to which they related. We
answered them all fully and fairly, at our
earliest opportunity, and in turn proposed
seven questions to the Register, from whom
we solicited replies. After delay of two
weeks the Register essays to answer in his
last issue. Conscious ofinablity or unwil-
Ingness to come up boldly to the point, the
Register resorts to an old trick in polemics
in order to effect his escape-charging upon
his opponents that of which he is himself
guilty. To charge 'dodging' where all
readers of the least intelligence perceive
there is none, only excltes a smile Of deris-
ion. Thus see the following:
| We did not expect at the time, tina. we should
receive unequivucal answers. We anticipated just
such "dodging" as the Spectator has exhibited
We knew they would not dare to answer them
We challenge them to answer our questions. They
need not pretend to evade them by answering ques-
tinns we did not PROFOUND. As for instance -
We asked if they believed IN The right ola Stale
to secede "USDsR ANY clRcuMsrANcEsW The
Spectator answers by saying they "do not believe
in the Constitutional right of a State 10 secede I'M
der any circumstances" Neither do we. But
you knew MIR. Spectator that you ware ''dodging'
when you penned that answer. You knew we
said nothing about Constitutional right. That's
dodge" numbprone. And if there were nothing
| OIL q, Gcio IN to hat
not willing TO show your hand.
Now every body Except possibly the Reg
isier) understood us as, denying explicitly
the doctrine of secession as held by South
Carolina, and that school ofpoliticians gen.
orally. If our reply was at all indefinite, it
was because the question was so. The Reg
lister is responsible for that, not we. But the
Register does not believe in the "Constiiu-
lional right of State to secede"-Mark that
it is an admission worth something. The
Register then holds with us to the Rev.
dictionary right, but repudiates the idea of
Constitutional or peaceable secession
! Where, we would ask, stand Messrs. LEAKE
and BoCocK, and perhaps Col. JOHNSON
also, IN reference to this question?
But now we come to momentous, prac~
teal question. See how skilfully the Reg
lister treats it-observe his air Of triumph
Again. We asked the Spectator if they approved
ed OF the Bankrupt Law? Wequote the answer: :
awe were very near answering 'fHdgs 10 the
r Ilcroc m tn
the Register, we reply that we were not in pOlltl-
cal life at The time, and don't remember 10 nave
had any opinion on the subject"
F1nire. ali You will find il little more than
fudge in the coming Gubernatorial election. Yes,
you would be grat6ed 10 get rid Of the odium OF lis
parentage, by crying fudge. But you can't do 1t.
s'Not in political life at that time" Did you not
vote then? Did you not vote for Henry Clay, the
father of the bill2 Are you not pledged to the sup
port Of Summers, who voted for it {! "Not In po-
ii,cal lire." Well it your information Of political
subjects does not 90 back beyond lS4l you had
better omit political life. The Consitutionality Of
U. S. Bank was discussed long before the Bank
rupt Law. and yet you were not too young TO have
an opinion in regard to that. But we let yon oil,
We had rather you would have been candid and
acknowledged that you were ashamed OF the Bank
rupt Law, and that it was so unpopular you were
|
put that down as dodge number two.
Perhaps before we are done the Register
will wish we had given no other ansWee's-
than "E adg which in fact isfhe only one
i the question merited. We repeat that we
do not remember what our opinion was IN
reference to the Bankrupt Law-if indeed
we made up any. It'll well known that the
question was not discussed among the peo-
pie, and was not made test in any party
election. owe were not in political life''
at the time, and, our position did not re-
quire US to form an opinion. In common
with the people of this section of country
generally, we felt little or no interest IN the
subject.
The Register, however, is Mortified be-
cause Mr.. SUMMERS voted for the BILL
We have taken the trouble to look little
into the history of the measure, and will
give the Register the benefit ofour research.
We find that on the 9th day of september,
1887 that famous Democrat MARTIN VAN
buren,, in his message to both Houses of
Congress, recommended the passage o a
Bankrupt Lap Did the Register vote in
1902 Did he not vote for this same MAR
TIN VAN buren, as President of the Uni
ted States, Where then was the Registers
holy horror of the Bankrupt Laws Does
he find anything more than "fudge' in this
tact: eyes, you would be gratifed to get
rid of the odium of its parentage, by crying
fudge"
But the Bankrupt Law got the go-by that
time. 1t came up again in 1S4l, when it
was recommended in message to Congress,
during the Extra Session, by no less per-
sonage than JOHN TYLER, afterwards so pop
ular with the Democracy as cold Veto."-
| The bill which became law and is now so
odous, passed the Senate on the 23rd day
of July, and we fear the eyes of the Regis
ter will pop out of his head when he learns
that ROBERT ]. WALKER, of Mississippi
rolled for IT.! Yes, this high-priest of De-
mocracy, this removed fnancier, this Sec
rotary Of the Treasury, chosen by that i'm
maculate political saint JAMES K. Polk, not