Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1854-12-28
MIR. Bolts, Letter.

Mr.. Bolts Letter.
We surrender most Of space this morning L
the letter of the Hon. John NJ. Bolts, in vndicaor
OF his position on the Nebraska bill. We do Thu
very cheerfully an act Of courtesy, but, by II,
means, in Difference to the common and intensely or
roneous view that any human being has the right I,
claim its publication the publication Of anything
else in the columns of this paper. We had though
that that idea had long ago been exploded, and wa
now universally considered dead, that a newspaper
was common property, free to any body who might
wish to it, for this purpose, that the other
We at least, have been in the habit Of publishing
only what felt like publishing, independent Of the
views, wishes, or interests of any being on earth.-
This consider sort of inherent right jus, abou,
rs sacred as any enumerated in the Declaration Of
Independence, or anywhere else, and we expect to
cling to it, even though half nation of men should
get mad, and amusc themselves by making pretty
mouths at Our courtesy is rarely, we hope, ever
appealed to in vain-but when thing lis demanded
Of right, it becomes quite different question We
distinctly state again, therefore, that wc.pubsh Mr.
Bolts letter as matter Of option with ourselves aud
because he has requested to TO it, and no, as Il
matter Of right.
Mr.. Bolts complains that out Of seven daily papers
published in this city, not has taken his side
the Nebraska question-not ever printed one line
that no wrotcaganst the Nebraska BILL and there has
not been one whose columns were open TO him for
vndication of his course though assaicd by ALL
Well, it is very true here alleged that all The pa
pers in Richmond, well nearly I'll in Virginia
and the South felt it their duty to take sides with
Mr.. Bolts the Nebraska question. 1t is equally
true, so far as We are concerned THAT never prints
cd one line Mr.. Bolts wrote on the question: and
this for many reasons, all of which were entirely "a
tsfactory to us, if not to him. 1t will be admitted,
however, that we make ample amends, il any were
due, by printing great many lines from him this
morning. In regard to the other idea, that We have
assailcd Mr.. Bolts, should plead, if we saw occa
sion to plead anything, not guilty. We have never
assaulted him, but this very letter OF his confirms
what we consider quite an unjust ard Cra,uitous
assault upon the Richmond Wig, As the
following sentence sufficiently proves -" There
is now but one paper in Richmond protesting to be
Wing, and that is understood, to be under the con-
troll Of those most hostile to my Interests and its col
have been long since closed against me and my
friends for all such purposes" What Mr. Bots ".n
terests" arc, distinguished from those OF other gen
tlemen, not particularly appraised; and. there.
to them not So far as we can gather ANYTHING
from our feelings, however, we solemnly own thu,
not knowing aforesaid in what his Interests" spe-
ealiy consist, we are unconscious of any Hostility
to item. Ii he means thongh that his "intercs,s''
are comprehended in his opposition to the Nebraska
bill, then it is likely the file of the Wing will
show, that "hostilc' to them.
To come to the more serious part Of our rcplv.-
We think it little ungenerous and slightly incon-
sistent in Mr. Bolts to represent us as "hose" To his
'interests if his "nereSts" are what we have limited
at while ut the time he attempts TO prove tia,
We have taken "unequivocal ground on his sje"-
Now we appeal, in the most solemn manner. with an
implor look and gravity Of face the most delight
full to every man, woman, and child in the State in
short, to all the world and the "rest of mankind" to
say whether We have in fact been ON Mr. Bots side
in the Nebraska aii,r, yet this is what he avows in
his letter. and then in dozen other places ,l,cl,rys
that the Wing has been considerably hostile to h.s
course on this b-'not less hostile than the E,auir
err ITSELF Aud in this latter opnsn we have not a
shadow Of doubt that Mr. Bolts is right.
Mr. Bolts mlSrcprescnS us in the language he quotes
from us, because his object appears bc to yu. us on
his side Of the Nebraska qucsllon-whcn we rrl.iou.
believe the fact 10 he that we not The language
we employed was simply designed to show M th,
motires OF those Northern De."ocra,s who sustained
the Nebraska BILL and not by any means to Indicate
our own opposition to .-not at all. We only saii,
what We thought that they considered it, in the lar
guagc Of Mr. Pierce, u "propoSiiun in favor Of fro
DOM" And we think, with all due Difference To NJ
Bots superior critical acumen that we can believe
30 STILL and even say 50, without being charged or
suspected Of opposition to the Nebraska bill
Having very cheerfully com lied with Mr. Bolts
request TO publish his vindcaon, We take leave If
the subject with the assurance to all creation ,b,,
nothing under heaven could induce US to throw one,
the columns of the Wing to renewed discussion ot
the Nebraska bii especially a. this particular time
Mr. Wise will claim our attention for a few mont,.
to the exclusion of most other subj ,cts TIE truth
is we shall have so many Of his Wing speeches and
letters to publish that we shall absolutely have room
for nothing else.