Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1854-06-19
nzs- The Spectator OF the l4th contains

fact of the evidence of despicably quer-
elous temper, might be ample grounds for
declining a controversy, even were his
name before the public. But we do not
feel disposed 10 let this Very valiant knight
escape as easy as his meried obscurity and
inslgnidcance might justify him in ex-
pecting He assumes to deal in facts, and
it is from respect to these, and not for
/ Resistance" that we have concluded to
draw his explosives up to the .ouchstone
Of truth.
He says: Il took the ground that DR..
Waddell had been removed (for it was a
rcmoral in fact without cause--other than
! his politics, and it has not been denied
No cause for his removal was assigned at
| the Board, and none can be assigned now
except his politics." 1t is true that he
took the grounds that DR.. Waddell had
been remoced, and it is also true that we
denied it. Now which Of us is telling the
auth. The physician TO the Institution
is elected for one year by the Board OF
! Visitors. At the close of his term of office,
another election is bad, which has always
resulted in thesrc-election Of Din Waddell.
until the last meeting of the Board. One
of the members of that BODY on that oeca-
sion nominated another physician, who
bore the highest testimonial Of professional
skill and qualification. He was nominated
BY member who did not know what his
politics were until after the election. Dr.
Waddell was also nominated by one Of the
Board. DR.. Waddell is Wing. The
person nominating him, after comparing
opinions with the other members of the
Board, AMI finding that majority were
against the old physician, withdrew his
name, and the clerk was directed to place
on the record "Dr. Fuqua is elected phys
ician." Vas this a removal? DR.. w.
was no more the physician to the instittu
tion at the time of the election than DR..
F. They were both on the same footing,
and a majority, land we may say high
minded, intelligent majority Of the Board
thought that the interests OF the Institu-
ton would be best subserved by refusing
to reject the old physician How, then,
under such circumstances can it be called
a removal. 1t was simply a defeat.
mo cause for his removal was assigned
at the Board" All, indeed. Where did
Resistance" get his information that he
speaks so dogmatically There mas cause
assigned. Dr.. Waddell himself had COM
planned frequently to members of the
Beard, that the duties of the post were too
ardnous for the remuneration allowed, and
from the frequency of these complaints
and other circumstances, a majority Of the
Board thoughtit was due to the Institution
and the officers thereof that another physi-
clan Should be appointed, not inferior in
qualification, who would be willing to
serve, without complaint, for the annual
allowance. In fact DR.. Waddell was not
particularly DESTROYS to be reelected, and
in view of this and the other attend
ant circumstances, the Board concluded
not to cucumber him with the office.
These facts were stated to the Board
These facts Influenced In a great de-
gree, the action Of the majority. 1t was
not, to our knowledge, urged before the
Board as an objection to Dr. Waddell, that
he was "superannuated." That is an
cpini on Of our own, which we still enter
tam. But we will state that the term was
used from no unkind motive. 1t was what
we believed, and consequently we had no
hestancy in stating it. We are entitled to
our opinions, and claim, and shall exer-
else freedom in their expression as to men
and things, regardless of the sickly whining
and impotent spleen Of those whose bust
ness it is to manufacture capital for party
and selfish purposes.
We have nothing to do with the con-
struction gwen by "Resistance" to Mr..
SINNERS article. That gentlemen, when
ever he may deem 1t proper, is full
ly able to defend himself and his ac-
lion. Therefore it is not necessary or in
place for the "locofoco organ" to under
take his defence. II the version of Gre
sistance" were admitted to be true, then
he might with some proprietv claim that
he had 'made out his case" But We de-
ny that the conclusions at which he ar
rives by gaIbling and emphasizing certain
words and sentences, are legitimate. Even
were Mr.. SINNERS article susceptible of
no other Interpretation than that given by
Resistance, it would be unfouded.-
Neither Mr.. Skinner, or any other mem
Der of the Board of Visitors, has been Gin
voked" to introduce party feeling and
prejudice into the election of officers of
that Institution, and the simple case OF
DIR. Fuqua, upon which reliance is made,
stamps the charge with falsehood; because
the nae,nber mho nominated him and a mo
iority Of the Board did mol knoc that he teas
Democrat
n 1 "A Il. acI