Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-10-27

THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.

THE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
BY hiTCHIE & DUNNAvANT.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 81, 1887.
MR.. HUNTERS LETTER.
Some effect has at last been produced by the va
rous euorts made to obtain avowal on the part OF
Mr.. Hunter. The communications which have sp.
peared in our columns, and those of other papers
have probably done much and the movement made
by the Democrats Of Rockingham has certainly done
very much towards elciiing this response But we
must also claim some credit for the perseverance with
which our own editorial labors have co-operated
for the attainment of this object.
The publication Of Mr.. Hunters letter is prefaced
by q short communication from the Hon. s. F. Leake
referring to letter written by the latter gentleman
and to which MIR. Hunters is a reply. We regret ex
ceedingly that Mr. Leakes letter has not also been
presented to the public. The whole matter would
be much more satisfactorily exposed, the people
OF Virginia made acquainted with the form and man.
ner in which MIR. Hunter has been nterogsted. IT,
as Mr.. Leake informs US, "the nterrogatOries pro.
pounded will be easily gathered from the answers,
then it is evident that the intsrrogatories were but
partially and guardedly expressed. On the other
hand if as Mr. Hunter asserts, they were, "in sub
stance nearly the with the questions put by the
Enquirer" then Mr. Hsn,er has given very in.
complete response to Mr.. Leske's nterrogatories.-
More Of this anon.
We cannot admit the suficency OF either plea
urged by Mr. Hunter, to justfy refusal to answer
the respectful interrogatores of the Enquirer" In
the first place, the Hon. S,nator does not plead d
rectly that our questions were accompanied by a
threat. Nor could he, in justice to us, have as
suned such position. He describes us as utteriDg
"threatS or cha rere so considered" We must con-
fsss that are at lost to understand the precise
significance Of this ex,use. The Senator cannot
surely mean TO admit htt no threats were used, and
OF the same time decue to answer, lest other peols
might believe that he was bu!lied into answer
Surely, Mr.. Hunter does not contemplate such total
defereuce to the opinions Of Others this would in
volve. The other position assumed by Mr.. Hunter
is entirely untenable. No question which the "En'
quirer" has addressed to him. has ever been found
ed upon his presumed 'espousbity for the edito
rials' OF any newspaper whatever. We have indeed
expressed the opinion that "The South newspaper
was founded with view to assist Mr.. Hunters po
litical prospects. But We have never yet tx
pressed the belief that Mr.. Hunter has been impru
dent, himself to take any step which would in
volve him in an unavoidable responsibility for the
course of that or any other newspaper. The cas'
stands thus An organized opposition has been wagec
against the present Administration. Mr.. Hunter doe
not deny this, nor can he deny it. Certain newspa
pers, the unmisakeabe Instruments Of this oppos
ton, have published statements substantially assert
Ing that Mr.. Hunter was implicated by acquiescenc
in the course OF this opposition. Though not ostens
bly, pretending TO speak by Mr.. Hunters authority
they did uss Mr. Hunters nsme-used it to adj
strength TO their caue, and to in that of tn
Administration. Under these circumstances, We cal
ed upon Mr.. Hunter-not as the Senator intimates
";o force upon him the Office Of Of the publ
press,' but TO rebuke the attempt made to injure IN
Administration by the US, of bis name by ignoring
all sympathy with the opposition faction, OF whic
these newspapers were the mere instruments. An
we ask again Does Mr.. Hunter persist in refusing
this act of Justice 10 the Administration and TO th
Democratic psrtyl Does Mr.. Hunter pretend tina
the 'pubc press" is entitled to such unbounded rev
erepoe that the Senator s not at liberty to rebuke II
unauthorized use of his own name Does he pre-
tend that he is restrained from denouncing unjust as
sauts on the President, by fears that he may thus IL
wade the rightful privilege of the press How 10 !
that when MIR. Hunter is questioned concerning tn
course of an opposition party or faction, he answer
without expressing approval or disapproval OF TIL
course We can find no satisfactory explanation IL
this reserve his part which appears equally unnt
cessary and injurious.
This refusal to ignore all sympathy with the oppt
sition, is opposed by hearty expression OF conf
dence in the Administration. Wea indeed inform
ed 'the mputation of hostility on my part, toward
the Administration OF Mr.. Buchanan, is founded up
on nothing that have said or done." This and tn
lsnguagesyhich Immediately follows it, might be EN-
poyed as well by neutral in the contest waged be
tweenthe friends OF the Administration and factio
protesting to belong to the Democratic party as b
partisan Of the Administration. This position of az
parent neutrality qualified only by the assertion -"
saying this, it may be- perhaps fair to add that hop
and expect to be able to support MIR. Buchanan Ae
mnistration in The main" This language still leave
Mr.. Hunter in non commi,tsl position.
It ia mere general assertion, fortified by saviD
clause which leaves him free to espouse the cause
those who have been engaged in the most inaldiou
part Of the opposition. Mr.. Hunter was called upo
to express an opinion to whether the course OF tn
opposition does or does not involve opposition Oh
main points of policy. He avoids any response T.
this by the general answer, that he expects to suF
mort the Administration "in the main." The yer
organs of the opposition, known to be employed In
svstematic course of attack on the President, hav
issued an assertion identical in substance, concerning
their own position. The opposition have chosen
describe as immaters points of difference, their re
peated assaults on the President and his advisers
their attacks directed at the foreign policy of th
Administration; their accusation that the Presiden
has become the accompce Of treachery by retainin
| in office funconary who, by gross usurpation Q
power, has violated his official oath; their depreca
ton of that policy by which the President has at
temnted to maintain harmony and unanmity amonI
the Democrats of all sections; their advocacy for
ssparate sectional organization Of the Southern De
mocracy, accompanied by opprobrium cast on tn
Democracts of the North. Does MIR. Hunter 6elieV
that he can acqueace in these views and co'operat
in their application to public policy and yet abe abl
N ,unnort Mr.. Buchanan's Administration an III
ua;n7" He does not inform US, either directly o
bv implication. How thenl Why, Mr.. Hunter
still free to oppose the Administration On numoe
of points, which have been described repeatedly o.
the friends of the Adminstration-all as highly i'm
nortapt, some as vital to the interests OF the Demo
cratic party.
We cannot regard Mr.. Hunters views on the Kan
sas Nebraska bill as embodying strictly accurat
description of its adoption or it's effect The pur
and simple abrogation of the Missouri Compromls
would indeed have proved "a moral triumph whic
was of vast Importance to the South and to the in
stitution of slavery ITSELF" even though the decisio
in the bred Scott case has since demonstrated tha
Isosla,iye Intervention was unnecessary for sue