Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-11-03
THE RICHM0ND ENQtIREK.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

W. bsvs had occasion, of late, to address several
;nnort,n, question, aud requests to 1.-The South
Ia it's usual spirit of frankne,s, that journal has omit.
ted to notice either one or the other, and presuming OIL
IA own m~agnanimous courtesy, presents an interroga'
tory TO which it respectfully requests a response on
our part. Under such circumstances, who could re-
fuse the graceful petition of The South T. We ae
required to say whether We were Informed OF 'no
movement Of the Rockingham Democracy before tue
event Of the meeting contemplated by such m0'e
ment. We have to reply that we did receive '"'""'
information, to the amount that the strong
tertained to obtain an avowal from mr. un'0 '"."
AZ vop,d enab,e the friend. of the Administration to
oo.onsr,,s in hi, 70. election, would probably soon in.
dnee ,ba ,..smblsye of q meeting for the considera.
ton Of this subject. This information reacnea US
from different sources. In no Instance was II convey
ed to Us by any person afterwards present al the
Rockingham meeting, nor have we any ground 10 DE-
lieve that the came nformatio was conveyed 10 I'd
at the suggestion, or by the desire OF any sucn per
son. Previous to the meeting, we had no commuhl
cation or conference whatever with any one present
at the meeting, either concerning the meeting nsei'
or any proposed course of action TO be adopted oy Inc
meeting. Beyond the mere assertion that the meet
,pe would probably take place, and that lie business
would be to consider the ~proprlety Of requesting an
avowsl by Mr.. Hunter, our information was so gene
raj and 90 indefinite, tina, We aid not even know OF the
occurrence Of the meeting. and had no means oy
which to surmise tue date Of lis occurrence until iouf
dogs after it actually occurred.
We submit that this state OF facts is very far from
;~ustifyins the conclusion Ell which the South leaps
with such illogical avidity, viz: ";hat the meeting IN
Hsrrisonburg was not the spontaneous impulse OF the
Rockingham Democracy''-that the principal mo-
YER. in that meeting were kuavish iutr'guers, end
the majority composed of ~accompl:ces ard dupes-
that the meeting WAS q 'got.up' affair, q cheat and a
farce. This ungenerous fling at the Democracy OF
Rockingham was at FIRST presented by'The South as
an unavoidable Inference, positive and pa!paoie. Now
the same %journa! shuflss back TO mere suspicion,
and seeks TO excuse its suspicious oarpinss-o y whsti
Simply by the fact that the Democracy Of Rocking
han were no, sufficiently cautious TO conceal their
proposed intention.
We trust that We have better ground and a better
motive for q conviction on our part, which "lhe
South naiveiy attributes 10 an "unaccountaole con-
fusion Of ideas" Hear a plain recital. Dir. Hunter
has been repeatedly requested 70 deny the assertion
issued by the des'ructiouist press claiming his CON-
pliclty 10 des,ruotionist schsnes. Weeks and months
2ass by, ye. Mr. Hunter vouchssies no reply. nor
does any friend interfere 70 provoke a reply by di
rect correspondence. But on the eve OF a popular
meeting, TO be essembled for the purpose of consi
derlug the question Of Mr. Hunters p~osition-prom'
hing to present tie issue - a manner demanding TO-
s~pectful answers friend does finally intervene, just
In the nick of slime, 20 furnish Mr.. Hunter With a IA.
vorab,e opportunity for the required political avow'
a. We must still persist in the conviction that these
facts present a chain OF circums;antial evidence
which can De reiu;ed by nothing short Of positive
evidence, to the contrary.
So convincing is this testimony that We repeat oc-
previously expressed opinion, Wis: that the movement,
made by the Democrats Of Rockingham certainly |
did very much towards elici:ing Mr.. Hunters
response. And We have yet to be convinced
that the expression Of this opinion has ever
Induced "~psople'' TO call US "crazy." The edi-
tor Of THE South has, indeed, pitied our mental
inf.m.rS; and although "Abihu" may describe the
editor as a "host in himeeii," yet the editor Of Tie
South" Is not people" Nor do we feel called upon
70 plead TO this charge o. insanity. Frequently.
when q schoolboy is pushed to the last resort, be
cries out impetuously. "why, you must be crazy ~
Bot on such an occasion, it would be supremacy ludi.
o,ous for his pedagogue to answer with the quotation
ri sm not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth
tho words of truth and sobernes.."
We have tried to give a full and satisfactory an.
swer to the enquiry of Tie South" That journal
will not, then. refuse to reciprocate interrogative and
responsive oourtesies. We have some questions of
our own, which we desire to PROFOUND for the second
time. |
First, we are still DESTROYS of being informed rs to |
the precise nature Of the interrogatories which, as
The South" supposes, alone Induced Mr.. Hunter
reply. Will The South join US in a respectful re-
quest for the publication of Mr.. Lsake's letter.
Again "The South has revealed it's acquaintance
With certain 'iutrigues,' which took place more than
. twelve month since, Intended, as that journal sug-
costs, to defeat the nomination of Mr.. Buchanan and
secure that of Mr.. Hunter. Now, will The South
inform US who were the authors and promoters of
these same i~utriguesl Was the editor of The
South himself privy to these intrigues7 Was he
at all implicated in their inception or promotion? If
20, TO what extent and how To these enquiries We
most respectfully solicit a reply.