Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-06-29
"THE soUTH"-MR. LETCHER.

|
upon it, and recur to it for selfdsfence. In ever,
notice have been forced to take of this charge,
have disclaimed any doubt to Mr.. Letchers fdeli
| ty TO the South. In the Enquirer Of June 9th
we said i've do not hesitate to declare our firm con
viction of Mr.. Lstcher's perfect soundness upor
slavery at this time, whether these charges be true
| not" On the 25th We said "we have no msirust fol
Mr.. Leicher's fidelity to the Sonth," and we now re
peat that do not for moment entertain an,
fears Of ln6delity to slavery from Mr.. Letcher. w,
have every confidence in his honesty and integrity
The purity of his private life is unsusd; and il h
charge is false his political life has been une1cep
tionable.
We did not choose to make hypothetical excuses
| for Mr.. Letcher, because We were not sufficiently &C
quainted with the circumstances connected with the
charge to give plausibity to our interences. VIZ
preferred to state the charge, the manner in which il
would be used by the opposition, and the probable
effects that would result from this charge if it wa:
not satisfactorily refuted by Mr.. Letcher. We were
the first paper that offered a plausible reason why
Mr.. Letcher's name was attached to the letter. We
suggested no difficulties in the way of deience, but
We pointed out the probable course of attack that
would be made upon Mr.. Letcher by the OPP osition
| We were not coutented 10 entrench Mr. Lstcher be
| hind the shallow defences Of "The Souh" the " in
voluntary impression OF prevailing prejudice we're
| too weak to seek to defend Mr.. Letcher upon. We
therefore, instantly pointed out the error Of The
South" Believing that Mr.. Letcher had some ex
cuss better than that volunteered by The South,
we pointed out neighborS error, and did not sug-
gest any difficulty to Mr.. Letcher. We were reply.
ing to the fallacious dsfences Of The South" and
neither attacking or defending MIR. Letcher
We are charged by "The South with an evident
indsposition to admit Mr.. Lstchers innocence" Let
US look to this. What is the charge against MIR.
Letcher brought by the Richmond "Whig ~ Briefly
that Mr.. Letcher signed letter containing terms
of appreciation and endorsement Of pamphlet high
" abusive of slavery. Now the letter certainly does
CONTAIN terms of appreciation and endorsement, and
the pamphlet is certainly highly abusive of slavery
-henoe we have only to enquire II Mr.. Letoher did
sign the letter. Yes no. s the answer Ii no there
s sn end of the matter, and the Richmond "Whig"
has been guilty of very grave offence. If the III
swer be yes then what excuse has Mr.. Latcher to o!
ferl "The South says ''invountary impressions
of prevailing prejudice" In the name of the people
of Virginia, We answered "The ouh," Mr.. Letch-
er has not made that deence;l that this patching up
of records wont bear Inspection and we ask "The
South" are you willing to risk canvass such hn
e1cuse7 Would the par excellence Southern paper
in Virginia defend the candidate of the Democracy
from tho charge OF emaacipatonism by saying thu;
in former days he fanatic and carried away hy
"the involuntary impressions Of prevailing prejudice.
We venture the assertion that Mr.. Lscher will repu
l.r. CO.. = b.,k
weakness of the excuse volunteered for Mr. Letcher,
we intimated that his age, natured judgment ana
professional reputation @ all forbid such an excuse
may have solicited Tie puU.,.-...- i'' ''.'S"ee
an intentional endorsement Of dialribe against
slavery" The faacy OF this excuse volunteered by
"Tbe South we indicated, by asking why did MIR.
etcher allow this letter aud pamphlet to circulate
for eleven years without any explanation or contra
dictiou by hint" This had been asked by the oppo
stion. We expected "The South to reply that Mr.
Lstcher had long ago repudiated this infamous pam
phlet that as soon as the published pamphlet appear
ed MIR. Lstcher had exposed the imposition nmated
by our informant, which DR.. Ruffner had practced
UPON him. If Mr.. Letoher has done this, it will be
perfectly satisfactory, and will refute every charge
made against hiH. When "The South 81
emphaticaly assured its readers that "Mr
Letcher had never written single word
against the rights or interest of slavery" We con
sidered the denial authoritative, and awaited the
evidence that would stgmstzs the nsnuatlons oil the
"Whig" 90 slanders. Our surprise was indeed great
when 1.-THE South" charge: Mr.. Lstcher with approx
ing this infamous diaribe agsnst slavery. we re
garded Mr.. Letcher too highly to charge him with so
great an offence, and not having sufficient intimacy
with him to give authoritative dsnial, we were
forced to consider the charge true after "The South
of the Oath said
Unspeskabe, then, is our surprise TO find peraon
of Mr.. Letchers good and sound principles dp-
proving ebuliton of such Incorporate spirit and
miscbsvous effect IL as piece Of folly tor which We
can scarcely venture apology much less JnstD.
cation.
After reading the above extract in "The South, we
could no longer regard the charge 10 the hypotheoa
manner of our editorial of the 2ith. The South
was surprised TO find Mr. Letcher "appro0ing' this
pamphlet, and 90 was the Enquirer" In our edito'
rial of the 24th written on the 23rd We had treated
the charge hypothetically: "If Mr.. Lstchsr did en-
dorse this pamphlet" We would not allow that ne had
endorsed tive would not believe that he could np.
| prove any such infamous language about slavery
l but when the editorial of 1.-THE South" admits MIR.
Letoher did approve this pamphlet, then We were
forced to meet the issue. This certainly was no ln
disposition to admit Mr.. Lstcher's Innocence" but
rather it was our defence against this charge by
"The South" Hence, on the Oath we published the
statement made by our informant, that Mr. L7tche'
had been imposed upon by DR.. Rufner-and could
not as "The South had alleged, approve the Ruffnel
pamphlet.
| On the 2jh we rebuked the Wing" for its par
tiaity in withholding the pamphlet as long as the
members Of i:s own party were liable to the conse
ouenoes Of publication, and springing it upon Mr.
Letcher after ten years sleep. THE South" admits
this was "wel putt" if 80 it does not show any indis
position to admit Mr.. Letcher's innocence.
To prove that we have shown en- indisposltlon to
admit Mr.. Letchsr's innocence. "The South says
"In ls47 the "Enquirer" protests Mr.. Lstcher wa
| of matured Judgment, and would not have eeei
guilty of the folly of signing paper without agreeing
10 the sentiments it contained bat suppose the paper
was altered after bis sgnsture-what then2'
We reply, prove the subsequent alteration ane
"The South" will e1onsrste Mr.. Lstchsr from the re
sponsibites Of the charge. But -" The South" has
charged Mr.. Letcher with approving this pamphlet
and hence forgery will not bs allowed. But if Mr.
Lstcher can show that the pamphlet WAS conserva
tive when delivered aud altered when published ant
as soon az lie read the pamphlet he denounced thu
sentiments and exposed the forgery Of which he wa:
the victim, he will have completely vindiested him
self from the inconsderate advocacy Of "fhs South
as we'll as the Incorporate malice Of the ""hig."
We submit, that "1hs South" has done MIR. Lstche
far more injury than the "Whig." First 1t den'e
the allegations of the "Whig," spurns the charges
and assures q triumph Of $4,000 majority. Next
'assures the .Whg' deestaton for the sentiment
of Dr. Rufners address" expresses "surPrlss 10 mt
per.ou of Mr.. Lstohers good sense and SOUND pr'n
ciples approving an ebuIlition Of such 'ntempera'
spirit" and concludes 1--WE protest it is not our pur
pose to offer an apology for deliberate sanct'on
the sentiments avowed in DR.. Ruffuer's pamphlet