The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1853-02-26

grossest injustice; and cannot doubt from -.
course towards myself for some weeks mast tb.t
this injustice was Intentional NV remarks mad
on yesterday in defence of Mr. STUART will 5. nnear
In the Globe OF to morrow, and copy will be FIR
nished to you, in the expectation that thew will find
place in your columns.
very respectfully, your obedient servant,
j. LETCHER
Remarks
We are incapable of doing intentional INNS
tlce to the honorable Representative of the
seventh Congressional district of virginia We
can have no personal feeling in regard to him.
Tor we have not the pleasure of his personal
acquaintance. For our knowledge of him we
are indebted to his motion for an adjournment.
we stated some days since that Mr.. LETou-
Err, on certain occasion, made motion IN
adjou IN on top of two similar motions which
had Just been decided in the negative, on re-
peated calls for the yeas and nays. The OBJ
lect of this motion, in our Judgment. was OBJ
Vlously to waste time, and prevent the passage
OF Mr.. DoTY's bill, which was then before
the House. Is not this true? If true. is
the statement or the inference uniust2
If unjust, and Nh. LEToHER will give an ex-
pianation OF his conduct, we will publish il
with pleasure; and our columns are open for
similar purpose to Mr. McMULLEN. Mr.. Dr.N
and Mr.. ORR. No man who feels himself ap-
grleved by any apparent ''injustice" in the
Republic shall ever be denied the opportunity
OF rebuttlng 1t through the same channel.
Hence we take the earliest occasion to do ius-
tlce to Mr.. LEToHER by publishing his letter.
notwithstanding we do not consider 1t a perfect
model OF ePistolary politeness. We make al
lowance for the offensive tone of it. because we
nave probably been the innocent cause of i'm
pllcatlng Mr.. LETcHER with his constituents
Has ne discovered that they do not approve Of
MS unreasonable motion to adjourn2 Have
they found out that it is not worth while to paw
man eight dollars day for obstructing public
business2
Thus much for our ''course" towards Mr..
LEToHER on this point; now one word as to the
Immediate cause of offence. We copv from
our reporters column in yesterdays impression
"Mr GENTRY said he did not believe the secro-
tary of the Interior was actuated bv bad n,otivss.
but it was the duty of the House to let him know
he had not done right.
MIR. LETcHER made certain complaints AGAINST
the Superintendent of the Census.
"Mr AsHE said it was due To Mr. Ranno5,, -,
say that that gentleman came to him ten davs
ago asking for full investigation into his conduct
This shows that he had disposition to screen .
himself from the charges of improper conduct
Mr.. LEToHER thinks this report of him
evinces the 'grossest injustice, y and that this
injustice was ''intentiOaa" on the part of the
editor" of the Rspab6e, Ii was furnished bv
ourreporter, whom we have found a very fair and
honest man. The worst thing about him is the
fact of being a DEMooRAr We do not desire
to state any thing to his disadvantage, but nm
der the peculiar circumstances of the case we
feel justified in saying that he is member of
the same political party with Mr.. LEroHER.
We do not mean by this that he belongs to the
faction OF obstructionists, but only that he be
lieves in the resolutions of '9S.
We are glad to learn that Mr.. LErcEER
did not complain of the Superintendent of the
Census, and by publishing this averment we
discharge all our obligations of courtesy to Mr..
LETcHER. But we are also gratifed to know
that he defends Mr.. STUART. In doing air
this, he discharges offices that cannot but be
acceptable to ourselves, if performed discreetly.
We have too much regard for Mr.. STUART.
however, to pledge ourselves to publish Mr..
LETcHER's defence of him without seeing If
1t is not impossible that Mr.. STUART NAV he
Of an opinion in regard to Mr. LErcHER's
speeches similar to that of Lord GRANNY when
ne signlied to his friend Sir WILLIAM DR.-
PER that che should desist from writing in his
ordship's defence.''