Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-07
From the Richmond South Sept. 3
MIR. YANCEY AND THE EDITOR OF THE
- SnI,Tu ~

SOUTH
In the "Enauirer" OF Yesterday, communication
frou, The Hon. VIM L. Ysnr-y IN The editor Of this
naper IL inserted with tho following Introductory eX.
PLANTATION , , am n,yo,
..Th. letter from the Hon VIM. l.. fancey, which ap
,,e,r in nur issue nr to-day transmitted by Mr. Yam
cy to In. editor Of THE SOnh with request Tor Its
publication that journal, aud i"ih"r requesting IN
,s uuicaiiOn should be- refused, thai the manuscript
,nud h handed over thu cdDIs 81 The Enquirer.
rn. editor Of The South having declined to accedc 10
ur Yanccys dcsc, hnvc ycIini the use of our CO.
unn, in compliance with the request addressed 10 our
.elvcs
When We have leiaurc to gr"pe through the proiS
..riods of MIR. Ysucry'- niermlnaDlr prUducon' We
nav devote half column IL Il retutaton OF s fala
.i.1 and An exposure of his mss'ateInents For the
n, s.ni we must be content 10 place ourrelvrs rlRhi
before the public in regard 10 the non appearance OF
hjs .pis,ls in the columns of The South
The " Enquirer says " me letter from non. WI
liam +, Yancey WAS transmitted by MIR. Yancey TO
he Editor of The South with request for its publ
.,iuu IN that Journal and further requesting, 10 case
.uch notification -hould be refused thnkte manuscript
5ouId be- handed orer 10 Me Editors OF the ERqn'rer
rn- Editor Of Ihe South hdD'ng declined 10 dccede'
xyi,hout further explanation this statement might
bs understood to imply lst That Mr. fancey
manuscript WAS communicated directly 10 the Ehitor
i THE South" and was Intended Tor publication III
IN. Enouir-r" only in the event ot our refusal 10 IN
..rt IT, and 2I. That we had declined TO admit II IN
mr. roIutnns from an unwiDgness TO render Justice
~ Mr. Ynucpy. or from an apprehension of lts ett1ct
N the minds of our readers We do not in-lnuale
hat the enquirer" means 10 authorize any such n
,r..si,n. W.. only affirm that the inference might
"a drawn from the EuquIrers" language, in the ab
scncr OF other explanation.
nis due TO our own puston before the public that
mi. farther e1panaton should be given and that Tile
-ntire business rhould bs exposed III oil s lhclden's
and details.
AMI with the most scrupulous concern lest under
b bi.s of ..ng we might uuintentionally represent
.he c.se in light too partial I" ourselves We VIII ~
c the transaction TO tell III own story Here IL thr
,r,..n,rd-nc. between the Editor of 1.-The South
and Mr.. TyI.r of the "Enquir.r," wh.r-in are sci
tnrtb both The manner in which MIR fsncsy's com
nuuicnon was delivered into our possession and the
,round of our refusal TO insert il III the columns oi
this paper:
r. A PRYoR. Esq:
Dear Slr--The enclosed letter from Hon. W. L. fancey
vos sent with other matter under cover 10 me- and, ow
mo IA nv absence my fat WAS not received before
Mr. Ynncey requests publish the matter should you
decline it Ii you decline To publish, will you be 50 kind
az TO return IL To me.
Respectfully, yours, $780, ,,..
August 2j;h 1855. MAI. IfLEh'
ENQUIRER OFFICE. RICHMOND, VA,
August 30th 1858. 5
r. A. PaYoR, ESQ, Editor of 'The South
DEAR stR- cent to your address three days ago
I,,cr from the Hon W. J. Yancey Tor publication. The
l,t,r though addressed to you, was enclosed under
to me- with the reques, that should appear also II
The "Enouirer As several papers huvc appeared from
our nffr. since tho receipt of that letter. without its
yublicHtion have request that you will return the
unless you have been prevented rom pup
design publishing the letter. am perfectly content to
awa, your convenience upon the assurance that you will
nnbli,h il 10 that may be able to satisfy Mr fancey
fhst ils DELAY fault of mine. The absence OF both
Yourself and myself from the city, was the reason you
did not receive the letter soon as It arrived in the city
by complying with the hooFe' you WI" M grca,,y yomee
yours &C.. NAL iih1h'
RICHMOND, August Both.
Dear sir: had intended to publish Mr.. Yancey's com
municarion but with my own commentary. It's appear
ence has been postponed ON account oi cngngemen
which rook me The city, and denied me the oppor
tnntv o, writing the desired criticism The manuscript
is now in hands OF the printer But as observe from
your note that the communication Is to appear III I'M
:. ENQUIRER" Hlso, must decline 10 insert II in Tn,
SUR" Mr. Yapcey having selected the " Enquirer a
IN, medium his appeal In the public has no right Il
resort also columns OF The South more especial
as my reply would appear In only one paper nave III
Gu Yours, ROGER A. PRYOR.
ENQUIRER OFFICE, RICHMOND, Va, Aug 81, 1883.
Dear sr: Your Of tn Both was received late las
night. When penned my lete- OF yesterday to you.
VA. not aware that you Ind been absent from tie cit
since cent you MIR Ysnceys Ms. or should not hsv
troubled you with that note
Mr. Yancey selected your paper in preference TO tn
Enquirer" as through your paper his defence Wouh
Zach mass OF readers would not reach through an
orh-r medium wish, therefore. you would still puos
Ihe s.me Your criticism shn appear in the Enquirer
With Mr. fapcey letteI. pespcclluHy, JoWSi
~ NAT. TYLER.
RICHMOND, AUGUST 81, ls5a
Dear Sir-Yesterday evening addressed letter TO Nj
Yancey declining publish his communication and e'
planning the grounds Of my decision. 1t is too late toerf
lore TO recall my refusal Accordingly return the con
'""H' '''"' ROGER A. PRYOR.
In order 10 complete bs case, We append prival
note from Mr.. Ysncey, which WAS received with b
communications
| IPGIrATE
Mr. Pryor-I request. you to publish This, my defene
against yoar structures in The south have written
constant physical pan and cannot copy 10 make pane
| On the Sd page Sd sheet have indicated by word
ITO BE- couinueda good point al which TO divide it, &c
Ion, or one number II you shall refuse me the Justice
publishing IT, request that be handed over to the ediIt
0' '''' ''''A'''''" W. /. YANCEY.
No man familiar with the usage of the editor
| profession will pretend that were under any OBJ
estion 10 publish Mr.. Yancey's communication.
the first place lie style and temper are offensive
the edo. ot this paper and for that reason aione
would have been Justified in refusing It pscein o'
| coiumns.
Aga,n: Mr.. Yancey's manuscript was trsnsmltte
to Us through the hands Of editor ofthe Enquirer
paper which is not reputed to sustain the mo