Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1854-09-16
The Examiner on Hunters Defence

Inc Examiner of yesterday occupies about four
columns oil that paper in replying to the Eaguirers
defence OF the Hunter Land Bill. The article is An
aoie one, and most successfully controverts the posi-
lions taken in defence of the Bill. 1t proceeds to
notice Tie statement of the Enquirer that in his
state the opponents OF the Bill form but a thin mi
nority oil tue party, and in reply to this has the
following caustic remarks:
"Ths is painful and startling nteligsnco n -, W.
form an humble uuit in very thin minority - Bn,
where are the humiatng proofs OF our being 1tbip mi
noriJF The Enquirer does youchsafe 10 furnish ia
readers with the evidences OF the imnenaa II. a.;, -
posed 10 favor the Hunter Homes tead Toe detailed
cuSrs OF our being in thin majority" have not vet
been published Will the Enquirer be kind eno, oh 20
tell how many Democratic papers in this STATE h,vo
declared for Mr. Hunters bill and how many have d.
clared against it. viii the Enquirer inform ma how
many counties have endorsed the bill? win the Euoui
er Inform us how many conventions OF the party in this
bAte have recognized the policy the pncples of the
Hunter HomeseadS Will il furnish the people with the
muoh desired Information respecting the views of our
members Of Congress upon 1t? viii the Ennnirer toll no
when, how and aud where did il first make the discovers
but thin minorityIof the Democracy OF this State OBJ
pose tho bill Does the Enquirer recognizes the weak
ness or strength Of the hostility Of the vrgni, Dsmorrs
cJ 10 the tone OF the Virginia press II refers 1,
popularity OF the oout Of the State ind Gated by the
press VIII IL allow the same rule 70 work in Virginia
for 10 Virginia more papers have opposed the Hunter
bill than have favored it.n
The above categor les present quite formidable
army, but will, no doubt be promptly responded to
by the Enquirer, insomuch as it felt authorised to
put forth the assertion that "the opponents of the
Dhl form buta thin minority Of the party" The
evidence TO sustain that assertion being called for
viii doubtless be forthcoming in due time In con,
hnuatonof its comments upon the bill, the Examiner
quotes various sections thereof to show that il is
discrimination in favor Of the new Satesr-tlltt i.
an "unjust and unconstitutional discrimination in
favor Of railroad companies and that il "dscrni.
mates against the old States in favor Of pauuers and
VaSAbondso OF every cline and degree" These il
considers the unconstitutional" and "obnoxious"
sections OF the Bill and objections so unconstitutional
and o6Aozoa, the Virginia Democracy are LEFT either
to endorse or repudate.
There is another poin, in the RrdmiHSr', reply.
particularly hard upon the favorite Democratic Ssoa.
Cor from Virginia. The Enquirer had said in its
elaborate defence Of Mr. Hunter that he had served
IN the public councils for twenty years, and that
" In all that time his conduct had not won so much
Of the confidence Of his countrymon would protect
him from the mputation Of unworthy motives at the
fru difference OF opinion, then IL we're truly waste
OF words TO defend him. II will be remembered,
that Nc. Hueter was Wing, and ws are not
surprised that The idea Of his Sst difference VI opin.
Joa'' With The Democracy ShouIl excite sime litus