Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-07
SEPTEMBER z, 1858.

, amicabls relations towards "The South" Every
ournallsf in the country will at once agree, that th
extraordinary po 'erdng of ii.tlt absolved us IRON
any obligation 10 publish Mr.. Yancey's communcs
| ton.
Nevertheless waived these objections, anc
resolved TO give Mr.. Yancey the benefit of his owr
reply our sirctures the "l-ague OF United South
trners." In fact, his manuscript Was already in the
hands OF the printer, when, for the fir time,
informed by Mr. Tyler that the communication WA
ais intended for publication in The Enquirer" Mr.
Ysnceys note ntmated no such purpose. On tht
| contrary, i,s langaage wss very explicit III iht
assurauce that it was 10 appear III the Enquirer on!
in the event of our refusal to insr, it in the column
of "Tha South" When. therefore. Mr. Tyler informed
ns that he requested 10 publish the communication
''ais0 IN the Engmirer,' We detected the want u;
candor in Mr. Ynnceyr correspondence, and resolved
To bhffte the dislng.nu"ua expedient. Accordingly
We apprised MIR. Yancey of our refusal TO nsert hs
communication, aud Immediately returned the manu-.
script to Mr.. Tyler.
The public may now determine whether the Editor
of "The South" warranted in declining TO publish
Mr.. Yancey's communication.
The above article from The South" and Mr.. Pry.
or's letter to the Editor OF the "Whg" explain them
selves. As 10 my agency in the matter, a few words
may be necessary. Mr. Yancey's letter reached Rich
.mond during my absence in Fauquier, and was for
wHrded 10 me and received in WarreHton. The
manuscript was enclosed O,en 10 me. had q
perfect right TO read open letter OF which was 10
be tile bearer, and did read II. When returned
10 Richmond enclosed the manuscript to MIR. Pryor
with my note published above, OF August % Then
followed the correspondence according 10 dates With
nv letter of August 3lst, sent back TO MIR. Pryor
the manuscript assuring him that his reply should
accompany Mr.. Yanceys letter in the Enquirer.
After Mr.. Pryor's positive refusal to publish, the
manuscript was mine, to do with as felt disposed
determined TO publish it, and my reasons for that de-
termination were that believed MIR. fancey 10 nave
been harshly assaied by the structures oil "Ihe
Souh" and that the right ofdetence and the pr'rege
70 be heard was due to every man. more especially
was it due to Mr.. Yancey, who Is a Democrat ot III
iluence and talents in neghboring Southern STATE
and gentleman who had been honored by the pre-
.entaon of a memento of General Washington
The charge of disunionismreceny urged by portion
Of Mr.. Ysncey's openen's, could not allow to ope-
rate with me against his privilege to be heard; tor
having always myself been States Rights Democrat
and acknowledging the doctrine of secession, could
not allow my own cherished principles to exclude
the defence of that gentleman from my own columns.
Mr.. Pryor does me but simple justice in eIonorating
me from any connection with the "Herad's" Telegra-
phc despatch.
never regarded Mr.. Ysncey's letter, "rtten for
publication and which had been requested 10 pu6fish
in the Enquirer" as of that strictly private charac-
Ter that would forbid the mention even Of its exist
sucs. NAT. TYLER.