Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-07-04
cARLILE's CRITICISM ON THE ENQUIRER.

NJ. + a.
FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 4, 1855.
CARLILE'S CRITICISM ON THE "ENQ UlRER'
As philosophers ascertain the instincts and habits
of an animal by study Of its physical conformation
so from his mental and moral idiosyncracies, we In
ferred the exact function for which Mr.. Garlic was
destined in the House of Representatives,. While
our readers were lalnsntng the election OF person
who would reflect so little oredi. the reputation OF
Virginia, and were complaining that the Democracy
did not achieve a complete victory IN the contest
with Know -Nothngism, We strove 10 appease their
ousrulous discomfort by certain suggestoins OF phi.
MISUNDERSTANDING them that, a. nature osntrived
10 employ the neanest aud most repusve Of ts crea
tures in some useful function, 80 it not altogether
impossible that Garlic even might indemnify the
honor of the State by serving sautary purpose
in the Federal Legislature. This much we ventured
10 predict that he would set of the virtues and ab
ties OF the rest of delegation in the strong relief
of contrsstod character aud that by exposing hnsel
upon all elevated platform as the noarnute represcn
,a,;ve ri the iuiquity Of Know.Nothingsm, he would
: ;muress whole SONS lesson on the popular mind.
Mr.. Caris has no. disappointed our expectation
nrorbecy. Perhaps he was not wanting in malice
but in ability resist the instructive impulses OF his
nn,ure. However it be, MIR. Csrllls plays the very
mar, we assigned him. Utterly destitute o: dignity
Of demsanor aud incapable Of any perception Of pro
nrsty, he perpetually indugng in immodest exhi'
b,ons OF his defects Of intellect and chnrac er. His
most recent display is in the shape Of Il partizan
bsrspcue, which he obtruded upon the attention Of
Congress at moment when the claims of public bu-
sness were imperative upon every conscientious rep
rs,spta,ive This ebullitien Of indecent dema-
| roguisn, however provocative Of public rebuke.
would not be noticed by u.s. if Mr.. Carlile had not
chosen to make the Enquirer the text Of his discourse
Not ,ha, We mean imply any obligation to respond
to his accusations; but that his position as Repre-.
sentative from Virginia. and his authority as member
Of Congress, impart a dignity and consequence to
criticisms which, but for such an artificial impor
tance we might we'll afford to dismiss with con-
tempt.
Mr.. Carlie attempts to establish an incompatibity
between the opinion Of the Enquirer and the doc
trnes Of the Democratic Platform, respect to Squat
Sovereignty. 1t is not necessary for US to avoW
| an nviucible repugnanoe to this odious and perni
cious herssy. Yet standing upon our position anc
accepting Mr.. Carlle's own definition Of the dogma
we may easily demonstrate that the principle main
tanned by the Enquirer is Identical with the principle
of popular sovereignty promulgated by the Cinciuna
ii Platform. "What i, the doctrine of Ssuatter Sow
ersignty7 asks Mr.. Carle. His reply to the inquir!
ia sufficiently precise and accurate. ''The doctrine
of Squatter Sovereignty" says be, "s that the nhab
tsnts of territory, while it is territory, by terrific
rial lgisaon, have the right that is possessed
by sovereign State to fix and decide the charscte
| Of their domestic institutions" Now, is any sucl
principle asserted, directly or indirectly, in the Plat
form of the Democratic party' Mr.. Carlile is no
particularly scrupulous in his assumption Of facts
but he does not venture to affirm, upon his persona
responsibility that the dogma of Squatter Sovereign
ty is propounded by the Cincinnati Platform. Wish
ing to convey false IMPRESSION yet anxious not t
be convicted of palpabe mendacy, he resorts to in
ference and inuendo and cites the authority Of other
for an opinion which he hssates to avow on his owl
responsibility. Commentators apt to pervert th'
sense Of text. We nothing for the dotum OF Mr.
Jones, or Mr.. Anybody elise. We challenge Mr. Car
lille to collate the words of the Cincinnati Plat
form with his definition Of Squa:ter Sovereignty
This 10 tho only Legitimate mode of settling the dis
pute between Here is the language Of the Platform
"Resolred That We recognize the right Of tn
people Of all the territories, Including ksnsa
and Nebraska, acting through the legally ant
fairly expressed will Of majority Of actual resi-
DENTS and rhenerer the aum6cr Of their inhab't
aals justifes u, TO FORM CONSTITUTION, ,c't
or rithout domestic siarery, and to be admitted int
the Union upon terms Of perfect equality with tn
other States"
dnG,
il this resolution asserts the principle which h
describes as Squatter Sovereignty. Every perso
with single grain Of sense will that the resou
ZION directly excludes and repudiates the principle
1t is of the essence of Squater Sovereignty, accord
Ing to Mr.. Carlile that the power Of admitting or re
iectng slavery, shall bssIeroised IN territorial lgi,
asion. But, the platform affrma that the power doe
not obtain until the territory comes to institute Stat
government, and that it must be exerted by const
utonal enactment. Evon then the power is not le
sitimate unless "ths number Of Inhabitants" wi
warrant admission into the Union. II is impossibl
to employ more explicit and satisfactory language
If we even desired to frame sentence which shoul
rcpudiate the principle of Squattor Sovereignty wit
The utmost clearnsss and emphasis, We would emplo
the identical words Of the Democratic Platform
!
can torture them into any other sense.
So much for Mr.. Csrlie's attempt to oppose the En-
1urer to the Cincinnati Platform. If he had been sue
cessfu in his enterprise he would have discovered tha
the En9uircrs "regard for the spoils" is not 80 So
preme over its sense Of duty as he seems to suspec
We might resent the inputation, if we were assure
that Mr. Carlile considers it an insult to be accuse
of vena motive.
Mr. Carlile essays also to convict the Enquirer G
inconsistency with ITSELF and with this view he re
produces our articles on the recognition of the Wa
ker- Rivas rule in Nicaragua. Thore is no more tru
in this than in the other accusation. 1t is true we OF
posed the measure; nor have we yet recanted ou
opinion of its inexpedisncy. What we said after tn
thing was done was, that we supposed the Preslden
acted upon exclusive information and from conside
ratons Of policy which The public were not prepare
to appreciate; and that although still not convinced
the wisdom of the measure, We would not presum
to condemn it until we were put in possession OF
the facts which determined the course Of the admins
traton. Is there any contradiction in these positions
Mr. Care may think 20, but the public will value hi
ideas of logical consistency as poorly as they rate h
notions Of moral proprety.
In conclusion We would suggest to Mr. Carlile, ths
when he chooses again to criticise the Enquirer
should furnish with copy of his speech, instead
attempting to escape NOTICE in She obscurity OF hi
, name and the responsiveness of his productions.
| sSs
THE PRESIDENT, AND POWERS THE
SCULPTOR.