Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1853-05-24
10 the Editors Of The Enquirer

LOUISA CUUNTY, May ~, 1858
Centcmen-Too much perhaps has already been written
concerning :datcs iu the Lepisl ure In ls county
but gust beg permission more TO respa5s upon the
patience Of your readers while notice as 6Hehv as can
the communication OF Green Spring 10 the Enquirer OF
the 7lh uimo MsstacmcnI oalpabe, and 80 well cal
cua,ed deceive the people, SHOULD moi &c permitted 10 pass
uncorIrciDd
lives uf "Pi6cpia Eomjnes, in an article published Ia
Inc Enquirer Of the Sd n advocating union and harmony
n The Democratic ranks. His Judgment seens 10 De $"
much warped by prejudice in favor OF his cheTs ami that lie
cannot view imparlIally any thing said in opposition ~
him. In imitation Of his example, might suggest, as
much appropriate signature to his article, hut ear
cut NuIus''-Hopkins nobody "Prlncipa non Homi
nee in advocating the claims o Dr. Fowler, does H. mol
he yea IN particular section oil the county, orls
personal friend cut becfute ne believes hln ~ DC pure
and aycrmg Democrat aud BECAUSE b" is standard
bearer scc0rdsace with the mronOrcd SlsciI CT our
parly To defend him from any 'spe'Son rom haseecf
source il may come, lie the duty Of every true Democrat
Green Spring" processes 10 s!r1 "ihr UNFINISHED
statement OF The proceedings. of he caucus which nonina
Ted Dr. Fowler As complete answer 10 what ne says Oh
that point would refer the voeta OF The county 10 Inc
statement OF seyen r the gentlemen who composed the no
minating committee pqblred 10 The same paper win Ills
communication He ssks the question: IS u ne really were
in earnest "Wferc Mr. PeRdleon9 read. on That
eyenul J occasion ~ and cDncQles because he as ot
put nomination voted for by acY one he had no tnd-
present and consequently the o~er portion he county
was not fairly represented. will venture 10 say that almost
every isJYGua Of that committee woad have supported
d.. p hud he inlu,aeG wish 10 become candidate-
MI p mud declared that OF lao eonton would he consent
10 rum The OF the parys no, agreeing on
any other man. He that "DI r. made OrcrtIres to
Capt Hopkins that they both shont decline in favor OF Mr.
p. This is incorrect Dr. F. did not propose 10 Withdraw
In favor o! aEy particular person He finding that MIR. H.
was determined to eGap.c in The field and that he had
somc friends who would suppo!; h;:: rather than there
should be division In the party thereby enaanga7c is sue
CESS should Wing candidate out OF the eleventh
hour G:o9osed TO Mr. h. that both should withdraw AMI
let The purity select another candidate binding themselves To
support him. who he might be- To this proposition,
Nh H. refused acccde. II prompted not from con-
sciousness Of receiving his nomination unfairly or from
fear Of being beaten BY Mr. bu, purely from desire 10
restore union and harmony 10 the Democratic ranss
But the stransest part CT "(tcen Sprnas article IL that
in regard Dr. Fs in or last Senatorial election
He in effect that Dr. f. obsnatey persisted in o
posing Mr. Amber the legitimate candidate of The party
Notwithstanding WhIg was In the field thereby eopad;.
zng the election of Democrat from The District. Had
thai election occurred under the old Constitution, there
would have been justice in asserting his right 10 be
considered the legitimate candidate OF the payi but by the
new Constitution each district In the State changed
and hundreds in each made voters who had
loved The right Of suffrage before consequently old rep
ressniaIye could reasonably consider himself the r9htiu
candidate without receiving the nomination from new
convention Dr. = before declaring himself candidate,
repeatedly proposed Mr. - thuta Convention should de-
eide their claims. Mr.. A. woc'I &c: cgrce the propo
posnn and moreover refused 10 say whether tc intended
becoming candidate not. Under these circumstances
nr F. announced himself This coon followed by The
encouragement Of Mr.. Dr. was still willing submit tn
Convention: but his opponent would consent As
will remembered few days before the election came Of,
Wing candidate broGgh: into the field II was now
too late hold general convcnon but Dr.. F., still unw-
ling that the success OF The party ahnl,d be riskGd,
By dividing it's strength. proposed II Mr. e. whom lie net
NJ Fuvanna court that the Democrat. there assembled
should decide between them Mr.. A. still Obstinate
How was it, would enquire of any candid mind the duty
Of Dr. F. or Mr. a. retire from the canvass7 Did Dr.
f. act as fairly and honoaby could actl But
enough OF this unmanIy and groundless pu:aton which
would never been resned 10 except the desperation
Of hope. 80 cduEe Dir. Hopkins friends ought be thc
las, persons in the woo TO Talk about consistency might
if would relate good anecd"tc, which heard short
time since Illustrative OF Mr. HIS. consistency, but for
bear
I'm conclusion would say 10 the Democrats Of Louisa Ea
BY eecting Mr. H. they would be establishing precedent
which in all lime 10 come would serve preface 10 rest
less and aspiring men, for dnracling pulling down The
marty We should put quetus to this epir by
voting en- masse for The nominee United We stand-dvi
ded VIZ fall" PRINCIPAL NUN HOMlNES.