Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-07
MIX YANcEY AND MIR. PRYOR.

Wepu6l>h IN another column an article from The
SOUTH Of yesterday, explaining the circumstance
attending the refusal OF The editor of that paper 10
pubsh tho letter addressed 10 him by the Hon. w.
l.. Yancey, which appeared in our issue Of 1hursdsy
last. With regard 10 our editorial accompanying
this publications. the remarks ol The South render
it necessary that should explain that We w-r" care
iu TO make our statement general possible, i'll
order 10 afford "rhe South the fret opportunity OF
publishing the specific circumstances OF lie own refu
sal or OF enabling that paper to decline altogether
more minute explanation, at its option. THIS me d'd
bccanse cc uerc as e sH are, entirely at ioss to
understand he possible application Of tie reason pre-.
seund jy Mr. Pryor inJusffca'on Of has refusal 10
publish Mr.. Ydncey's letter.
Tn. charg. of u want OF candor imputed TO Mr..
Ynncey by The South, il obviously unjust to that
gentleman. Nothing more natural than that Mr..
Ynncey should, in communicating with one OF the ed
ilors of the enquirer pay that paper the compli-
ment Of expressing the desirs that his letter to Mr.
Pryor should appear in the Enquirer" after it's pub
llcation in The South" nor we aware of any ne
ceesty dictated by custom convenience or propriety,
which at all required Mr. iancey TO make known TO
Mr. Pryor hs intention to obtain for the letter such
All additional circulation. Such an announcement on
the part of Mr. Yancey, if made to Mr.. Pryor, would
indeed, have been work OF mere supererogation.
On the other hand, We are obliged TO decide that
the following assertiou made by THE South Ia itself
clearly and undeniably uncandid "ln fact bis MIR.
Yanceysl manuscript already in the hands OF The
printer when for the first time, we were informed by
Mr. Tyler, that ths communication was also intended
for publication in The Enquirer MIR. fanceys
note intimated no such purpose. I'm me contrary
ITS language was rery explicit in Me assurance that
IL ,-as 10 npp,ar an The" e"Eaqujrer" oSLY in The eveM
Of our refusal 10 insert IN The columns of "fhe
South"
Now the concluding sentence above quoted, ID a.
together inaccurate. ANY auch assurance as that
imputed TO Mr.. Ynncey, would have been in the
highest degree absurd; for, after the appearance OF
the communication in The South, no assurance on
the part of Mr.. Yancey could have prevented uf
from reproducing what had already become pubic
property had we chosen TO insert it in our column
Aud We submit, that Mr.. Ysurey's private note ("
Mr. Pryor cannot possibly be made to bear any such
construction. Rend Mr.. Yancey's note,
quoted in III. article from "Tbe South" published in
our issue of to day.
Had The South" refused the publication, on either
of the grounds which il descrbes itself as 'rn'r'ns'
We could have appreciated the reason OF lts refusal.
But when the mere fact of Mr.. Yancey's expression
to Mr. Tyler of desire TO obtain for his own letter
a larger circulation than The South" alone could
furnish j.. announced the cause for such REFUSAL
we ars entirely at loss to fad the connecting link
between cause and Effect.