Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1853-12-21
THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
Lay on, Macduti."

THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
Lay on, Macduh."
The Richmond Enquirer, after having labor
ed for weeks to aid the Washington Union and
its freesoil allies to drive the national demo-
Gratis Of New York, and all who sympathise
with them, out of the democratic ranks, in or
der to make room for the spoils-seeking crew
of Buffalo traitors, ventured to make covert
assault on US, and by implication on those Con-
gressmen who voted for the publisher of the
Sentinel for the Office of public printer.
Time and again we had been urged to re-
Duke the Enquirei's assaults on the national
democracy, yet our hands were restrained by
old associations, and personal attachments.
But when we saw that we were attacked by that
journal, not openly and directly, but by cum
ming innuendos and malignant suggestions, we
perceived that the Enquirer did not respect the
restraints which had fettered us. Even that
discovery might not have drawn syllable from
u.s. but when we saw that the masked battery
which had been opened on us, must injure our
friends and supporters, silence and forbearance
were no longer admissible.
Our reply to the Enqairers provoking be-
cause covert assault, comported with that dig
nifty which the press should always maintain,
and with that calmness and decorum which
springs from consciousness of right and the
certainty Of ultimate triumph. On Monday
the Enquirer rejoined; and in its rejoinder it
,tta 10 1,p fba yub1,o d cfr Of
empty nothings and contradictory statements
by seasoning of abusive epithets, uttered with
an air of hatulent conceit and swollen AFRO
gance. We have never studied language in
the FISH market, nor have we ever sought to
make ourselves adopts in the elegant and elo-
quent literature of Billingsgate. We shall,
therefore, defend ourselves with other weapons
than abusive epithets, and will maintain our.
selves in the contest which has been forced
upon us by facts and arguments, and not by
unfounded charges, preferred at the dictation
of impotent malice and childish passion.
But the Enquirer affirms that we are the ag-
pressors Although it assumes bold and boast
fu tone, it strives to place itself on the defen-
sive 1t goes so far as to say that there is
nothing in its article on the election of Printer
10 the Senate to which we could take excep-
ton. To sustain that assertion it even quotes
our remark that lit is to the tone and the i'm
plications Of that article that we object, rather
than to any direct and specific charge If the
E,adatirey can shelter itself under that remark
it is welcome to the thin covering it affords.
The Enquirer did not make any specific charge
against us, but it assailed us by implication.
It's attack was not direct and open but it was
made indirectly and from an ambush. We saw
that the drift and purpose of the Enq,tirer's in
sidious article was to create the impression that
the Sentinel was an opposition journal, and
thereby to bring upon the distrust of the
democratic party, which we were laboring to
serve. Determined to engage in no guerilla
contest-not meaning to avail ourselves of the
projections of bushes, brambles, and hedge
rows, we resolved to bring our assailant into
the open field where we could have legitimate
and manly conflict if hostiities were to be forced
upon us.
The Enquirer, although it attempts to make
the Sentinel appear as the aggressor admits, with
that glaring Inconsistency which has character
lied it for some months past, that we placed
the right and true construction on its language.
In order to show that it did not cast either
positive or inferential censure on the course of
the Sentinel, it sets forth "the purpose with
which the original article in the Enquirer was
written" and the very first sentence explaining
that purpose is in these words: I" The election
of the proprietor of q paper notoriously inimical
10 tie administration, by coalition of WING
and abolition Senator's, was claimed, not with.
out A semblance of reason, as premeditated
stroke at the administration" Do not these
words fix and tasten on the Enquirer the mo-
tives which we attributed to it? Is anything
more required to prove that we read the En-
g,ti1er rightly? We have here the positive and
explicit admission that the first and leading
purpose which dictated its insidious article in
volved an unfounded charge against us, and an
untrue statement as TO the manner in which
the publisher of this journal was elected printer
10 the Senate?
But the Enquirer seems to feel that its efforts
TO make US the aggressor is too loose and in
consistent to carry conviction; and, 10 strength
en- itself, it states that it had been expecting
an assault from us weeks ago. Indeed, it says
that it had bssa told that We were lying in wait
for it. The poet tells US, with truth, that the
man who has violated the law, "sees an officer
in every BUSH and no doubt, when the Rich
mond Enquirer deserted and abandoned US in