The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1853-07-13
COL. GARNETT'S LETTER

We publish to-day, in another column,
the reply of Col. Garnett to the structures
made by us on his letter relative to the i'm
portant question shortly to be decided by
the Board of Public Works-a question in
volving, as we conceive, the interest of
Virginia to an extent which none other
now before the public can possibly claim.
We have delayed the publication thus long
partly for reasons already stated by US, and
partly because we wished to become tho
roughly acquainted with the positions as
sumed by the writer, in order that our re-
joinder might go forth to the world in COM
pany with his reply.
The complaint made by Col. Garnett,
that We perverted his arguments and turned
his positions into ridicule, is unwarranted
by any thing contained in our former article
upon this subject. The language in which
that article was couched was as respectful
as we knew how to make it. The conclu-
slons at which we arrived were only such
as seemed to us warranted by his state
ments. If he has been made to appear in
an absurd and ridiculous light, the fault lies
with the absurdity of his positions, not with
the untairness of our remarks. Far from
us has been the design or the desire to
"crush" Col. Garnett, and we may add
not less far has been the ability to do So
1t was assumed by a man, who certainly
had as much experience in controversy as
any other of his day (the late Lord Byron)
that no man could write another down.
while he admitted that it was a very easv
matter for an author to do that job for him
self. Not less unwarranted by the facts of
the case is the assumption that we have
assailed" him. When the letter of DIR.
Graham, declaring himself in favor of the
1, g. gauge, made its appearance, the
Lynchburg Virginian, in leading editorial
article, assailed the author particularly on
that ground, and in endeavoring to prove
that his views were altogether unwarranta-
BILE, stated that certain railroads in Ken
lucky had adopted the foot gauge. This
statement, Notwithstanding its accuracy
was said to be vouched for by the most
reliable authority, we knew to be alto
gether incorrect. We knew that the lines
in question had adopted no gauge-that
they were waiting for, and would be deter
mined by, the gauge to be adopted ON the
Covington and Ohio road-and that they
they were extremely desirous to have the
4, s. inch decided upon for the latter. We
had nothing to do with the contest between
DR.. Graham and Mr.. Price,-we voted for
the latter, having ascertained that he was
for 4, 85-but we conceived that we had
much to do with the statement Of the Vir-
ginian. We therefore gave it the contra
dietion which our information warranted us
in giving it, thinking we were dealing with
man of our own cloth, and never, for an
instant, dreaming that we were getting
into a controversy with the Engineer Of
the Va. and Tennessee railroad. We had no
conception of the blunder we had made.
until it was made known to us by the arrival
of Col. Garnett's letter. We admitted if
reluctantly, as he very justly says, because.
in the first place, we violated our rule by SO
doing, because, in the second place, we had
assailed the editor of the Virginian and not
Colo. Garnett, and because, in the third
place, we trembled for our columns, when
we thought of the illimitable controversy
into which we might be plunged. We had
had before, experience Of the long -winded
generation of engineers, and we very well
knew that in this particular Col. Garnett