Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1853-09-28
mr. Eyeretf's Letter.

Mr.. Everett treated the subject IN the comTu-
nication addressed 10 MIR. Champion, we
agree with the Boston Advertiser, that the mat.
ter had "become, in a great measure, a per-
sonal quest, n. and il naturally devolved on the
author of the original letter TO defend the
views presented in it against the
that have been made upon them" Though
wanting in official character. the chaste and
dipni6ed letter of Mr.. Everett, as an over.
wbelming Indication Of views previously ex.
pressed ly our Government, must command
general attention and admiration. We are
sarry to find however, that ii has been received
with a degree of captiousness by some OF our
democratic contemporaries.
Prominent among this class are the n. York
Evening Post and the Richmond Enqaircr.-
They do not leny the true American spirit and
the eminent ability which characterize the pa
per, bu, the Post c%onfesses 10 surprise that
'ordinary prudence and sclf-respect" did moi
prevent Mr.. Everett from exposing himself 10
an antagonist whose official position absolves
him from the necessity of taking any public
notice of his reply and the Enquirer can
but express the opinion that he subjects him
self to the charge Of hankering after notoriety."
The truth is, it is suspected, the surprise of the
one and the opinion Of the other. both owe their
paternity to an apprehension tina, Mr.. Everett
has probably taken a little "wind out of Mr..
Marcy's sails
But the Washington Union views the an.
swer of NJ. Everett in a different light from
its brethren whom we have quoted, and thus
refers 10 it:
II WILDE seen that Mr.. Everett intentional
ly avoids any discus ion oflhe new aspects Civ
en- To the Cuban question as between Great Brit
ain and the United State in certain passages
Of Lord John RusseIl's d patch, deeming il
proper to lenve all that por on of the subject
to be disposed ofunder ihediroction ofthe Pre-
dent, through the Department oil State and the
Anei can legation in London. Our reade >
will appreciate The proprely of his course III
this respect, and will follow with interest and
gr tifcation his m erly refutaiion OF all tie
pointsin Lord Jno. Russel's de patch to which
his attention is directed.
In regard to suggestions as TO a further
official reply from the State Department, the
Union does not perceive the practical advan-
tage of a special reply To it" from that quarter,
but intimates that the views Of our Govern
ment on the subject have been put in the pos.
session of the American Minister IT the Court
Of ST. James,
The following is a portion of Mr.. Everetts
ietter.-lt will be concluded TO morrow:
TO the Eight Honorable Lord .T0hn Russell:
BosToN Sept. 18th 1858.
My LoRD-Your despatch o" the 10th OF
February last 10 Mr.. Champion has la ely sp
peared in our public papers. As ii is in rcaIi
ty, IT not In form. a reply to my letter of tn,
LIST of December, 1852, on the subject Of ca
ba, | regret that it was not prepared and sent
before my retirement from the department OF
State. But though | must now do it as a pr
vate individual feel rs il it were 10 some e
tent my duty TO answer it. | shall endeavor
TO do so. in a manner consistent with my sin
cere respect for your public character. and "a
lively recollection of your personal kindness
during my residence in England.
Before remsrking on the contents of YOUR
letter. | will observe that, though it contains
some courteous expressions, It's tone is. upon
the whole, not quite as conciliatory as might
have been expected, considering that my let
ter of the lst of December was altogether res
pectful and friendly toward the two Powers
both III form and in substance. have heard
that in presenting this correspondence to Par
llament you INDUCED lin some sarcastic re.
marks, but | have not seen any report Of
them. Your despatch is no, free from a
shade OF sarcasm in one or two sentences
This | shall endeavor to avoid in reply, lot
that it would be difficult to follow YOU into
that field, but because | cannot think that an
encounter of wits between us would be an ed
flying spectacle. or one W hich would promote
any desirable national object.
You say, that in my letter of the 1st of De.
cemher, | entered into arguments not requir
ed by the simple nature ofthe question before
me- and the length of my letter has been
complained of in other quarters. The ques
ton propounded to us was certainly in one
sense, simple as every question is That can
be answered Yes" or mo" But how va.
rious, complicated, and important the inter
ests and relations involved in ii! Besides, the