Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1858-09-11
The ENQUIRER rs. John Letcher.

and controversy, concerning the gentleman
whose name heads this article, and doubt
less we would have continued silent, but for
the continued and unholy warfare waged
against him by one of the leading journals
Of the State, we mean the g Richmond En-
quirer." Now what have been the motives
which prompted the Enquirer to this course,
we are not entirely certain, but Of one thing
we are certain, and that is the Enquirer has
been conspicuous in keeping a ball in mo-
ton first started by the opposition press
Az we said, we have purposedly remained
silent on this, believing that no good re-
suits from such controversies, when both
should be laboring for the same great end
or in other words we have faith in that max
I'm which says, " that house divided
against itself must fall" The position
which the Enquirer has taken, seems to US
singularly strange and ridiculous. It is so
far as we are able to form an idea Of it sim
ply this Itstrenuously opposes John Letch-
er, on account of the Rufner pamphlet. At
the same time it keeps constantly before its
readers by means of editorials and commu-
nicatlons, a man, whose political record is
not better and probably not as good as that
Of Mr.. Letcher. Bnt the strangest part Of
the whole farce is yet to come, for the En-
quirer actually denies, after all its parade,
thai Mr.. Faulkner is its choice. But
spite Of its reiterated declarations, the thing
speaks too plainly for itself, to admit of a
moments doubt. The alleged ground for
this opposition, is that in the year 1916 he
considered slavery a social and political
evil" Twelveyea ago Mr.. Letcher occu-
pied this position. Twelve years has he
been in the service of this district and by
his every act, vote, and word proved that
the contrary was his belief, ard that he act
ed from motives entirely conscientious and
in accordance with the wishes of his con-
stituents. What does this show in regard
to this position of Mr.. Letcher? Does it
not prove clearly, that whatever were his
private opinions on this subject, that be con-
sidcred emancipation impossible or if it was
possible that it would result in endless dis
turbance to the State! Or, does it not
show, that whatever were his abstract opin-
ions on the subject, that practically he con-
sidered the institution boon and blessing
to all who enjoyed it. We see no other in
ference to be drawn from this course of Mr.
Letcher and for ourselves wish no better as
surance of his fidelity to southern interests
and southern institutions, than this same
course Of conduct. But how much better
is Mr. Faulkner's record than that Of Mr..
Letcher In 1882 Mr.. Faulkner was as
strong an Emancipationist as Mr.. Letcher
IN 1916. We say in 1892 and SO far as we
know he might have been in favor of it even
since that time. If twelve years Of dill
gent service then with Mr.. Letcher's solemn
observation Of his change cannot wipe out
the blot from his escutcheon, then surely
twenty-four, would be as powerless for Mr.
Faulkner. The Enquirer then is deficient
in that brightest Of all gems, consistency
and Inconsistency, unavoidable as it was un-
der the circumstances will be fatal to all the
Enquirer's hopes. But there is another
view to be taken Of this. Mr.. Letcher is
now and has been for some time past, the
of this district in Congress,
he is we believe the choice Of majority of
the people Of Western Virginia for Cover
nor Born, reared, and educated among
them, they certainly have the best right to
know him. Now is not this absurd charge
Of the Enquirer, direct slur upon the
judgement aud soundness of this the Tenth
Legion Of Democracy!
Does not every charge brought against
him, weigh with equal force against them
But who ever for moment doubted their
fidelity! Nay
q Doubt that the stars a.e fire
Doubt that the sun doth move"
But let it be the last doubt that ever troub-
les the breast Of the Enquirer, that this
time honorcd legoin will ever prove recreant
to her cause or country. In conclusion we
would say, that being perfectly satisfied
with the explanation which Mr.. Letcher
has given, we are willing to take him
as our leader in the approaching Gu
material contest, and moreover we shall make
it our duty as we'll as our privilege to de-
fend, SO far as in us lay any attack which
shall be made upon him in future. We
shall consider, moreover that any attack
made upon him is equally applicable to his
constituents and shall defend it as such,
and should he get the nomination, (of which
we have very little doubt we will support
him to the best Of our poor ability. But
wont the Enquirer be in a most delightful
pickle, in case he should be nominated. It
will then in truth have given the opposition
a lash with which to whip itself through the
whole campaign. Tenderhearted as we are
we already begin to sympathise with it
But if our advice is UNDECIDED, of course our
sympathy will be lost, and if the Enquirer
is determined on destruction, then we have
no more 10 say in the matter. Its blood