Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-14
NUMBER ~.

nr,oL,L.., r "ot 10 Dr. nlsta4eD that Jud ~
'U.Aeuofouen did not, by reques, or permission. "a
'O.'A' D,n ~ -'se any publication Whatever He
p'e'u' su''y 10 tnla fst grave indictment and fail.
10 urge even palliaing circumstance r.@
deaVor 10 discover one. Could Mr. Gilman. ba,aA
ferred from Judge Brockenbroueb's ,pnnosod s,,.a.-
SION OF unwilllngnes' to serve bis party and ri,
an expression uttered in the courss of ,,ru
ana hurried private conversation an author,
Mr. C!emens to step between him and the ppblic an
"c' do n'S n!outnplece In matter 40 Important DID
Mr.. Clemens, or anybody else, ever know .,c,
authorization to be thus extended Can Mr. Clsno,.
pretend to be altogether ignorant of the mos, ,r6,
nary propr'ees which attach TO matter of such r..
| sponsioiHyi Again, E MIR. Clemens pretend that
M "as ignorant or even forgstfrl of the conviction
tha' II biz communication e tho 'rrauirer" spcuG
nave os. cconosnis, by q private nc.,, setting
iorth The whole truth Of tho ca.e the roors or this
paper would at least have DELAYED nubIcstioo
until they could communicate vii. ga Brcc.s,
orougbi Nay I'd tc not know that if such e,n,,rs
''oh mad be furnished, his communication would
oe' pFoos 1y never have secured publication at s'
ana was not explanation withheld for he sole pur
pose OF securing immediate publication Tb..s
questions furnish their own answers: tbsv are .,f
hcent to demonstrate the fact thar M nsis,ior
even cal. /, found for Mr.. Clemens f,ss s,,,srs,,
'''a' ne WIS., authorized by Judge Brockenbrough TO
MAKE publication as by authority Of the latter On
the hrst Indictment, then, Mr.. Clemens s guilty;
gu'ity oy bis own acknowledgment; guilty without a
oisc'Vsrabe circumstance 10 palIiste his offence.
As 10 the unauthorized statement iteef Was il
'rue VI iase And how does this question affect Mr
Clemens he now admits the unruth OF the st.te
eh'. OUT pleads that its assertion WAS the result Of an
noneS' Misrepresentation. Let US weigh the testimony
on this latter point. In the rst place Mr. Cl.m.ns
mas himself furnished conflicting statements. In hi.
communication TO the Enquirer" he substantially
describes the assertion imputed to Judge Broeken.
brough as an express assertion He now admit. ,bs,
Judge Brockenbrough "did not expressly .sy So,
but that he, Mr.. Clemens, might have honestly mfr,
''@ Do mucn from the whole tenor of the coversston
toHery' did hs honestly infer that Judge Brocksu-
orough Intended TO authorize him TO publish m.r.
differences y
de takes the trouble to inform US that he il judge
brockenbroughs friend, aud familiar with =,
popularity yet Il appears that he made no are17
to remonstrste against this supposed renunciaron.
when made by the Judge; that he did no, even afford
him the opportunity to explain or correct the infer,
enoe, much less to recall a supposed discrimination,
which must grsvely affect the wishes of bis friends
and the interests of his party but Mr. Clemens s-iEed
immediately on mere Inference published II a.
though 1t we're an express avows and as IL pub,hed
oy Judge Brockenbrough's express authoriz alton
thus employing the fret nkling of opportunity 10
afecually exclude q 4" friend " from competition for
public honor.
We now come to the rsssopableness Of the Inter.
eucs drawn by Mr.. Clemens. We take the evidence
of bis own witness:
Question: May not have honestly Inferred from
;he whole tenor OF our conversation, that you de-
clined in any way the Of your name in the COM
ing CANVASS although you did not expressly cav -or'
Anscer, From the whole tenor of our conver.s-
tion, do not think that you could reasonably infer
thai 1T I'D ths use of my = -,
IN The coming canvass unless inc 1.rr s.c.,m-r,r,
hssire TO be ths incumbent Of the GubernaoraI Of
flee would warrant such deduction"
Now We submit that this disclaimer did no, w.rrs.,
any such Inference. Mr. Clemens must have known
tnat such disclaimer, 30 far from wsrranfiDg such a
Inference, s very frequently made by honest ami p.i.
rioc men, capable of spprecating the burdens of IA
borous and responsible office from the duties OF
which they are still unwilling to shrink. Thus, on
Judge Brockenbrough's sdnssiou Mr. Cl-mrns' in
'erence must bs regarded as unreasonable And VIXEN
We find IL c.nnsc-d with further Inference hat Of
an authorization t"pu -hl altogether unwarranrnh'e
and which does nor admit ot pr-text ni-ak-; and
when both differences are given to the public, IN 'he
form OF positive s'atenents, we obliged To d.
eide that the one Inference, AZ we'll the other, 10
something worse than unreasonable.
We have already adverted to another point of cumu.
lave evidence against Mr. Clemens. He has not
vsntured to place -ecord single express denial o
any one of the charges preferred against him. He
has refused to enter into any explanation OF Ills
own. He has attempted to throw the whole respon--
sibility of his defence the shoulders of man. who
is bound, by the circumstances Of bic position, we'll
by generous and forgiving nature, TO extend 10
him the uuo, limit Of possible charity. Ia ,b. can.
did, Ia it manly7 Ia It generous Is it just Or
rather does il not in itself lvove an ungarrantable
intrigued
Such is the just and concise review of the evidence
against Mr.. Clemens. Let US now advert to that
which he attempts to present in bis owa favor.
lot. Judge !}rockenh-f n did diecaim ...e desire
to rs tne lucnmh mt OF Tho guoerrstoral office We
nave dTIst" 'Ocslt'-r'' LIS eLr:Sg.
We admit at it s certainly III. nost plnLsible vet
set forth In Mr.. Ciemens favor. How lilue thi- ad
missou amounts to. may be judged by what follows.
%. Mr. Clsmens Is desrous to p.-.-.o.e the pol.ti-
cal aspirations .or- other friend. tQusry.-May
not this pece Hf sy,deuos be transferred to the credit
of the proser lion y
Sd. Mr. Clemens is afflicted with ''mp ;lsiveness OF
temper" This evidence goes for naught; it falling
appear that natural mpsuosity, in this instance, is
accompanied by its usual concenitsnts of rsnkness
and ge3e -os:ty.
4th. Judge Brockenbrough, although filled with
astonishment' at Mr.. Clemens conduct. Ia uot willing
to impute it to intrigue or resohery but,
of the let, I'd and 81 last alleged In Defence
does not hesitate to attribute this conduct to mere
inconsideraeness." The mere opinion OF such wit
ness, to the motives which have induced an act,
although entitled to high respect, is by
elusive. Moreover, the alleged for this opin
ion although they may justify extreme exercise OF
Christian charity on the part Of gentleman who has
something to forgive altogether insufficient eat.
isy the requirements of strict and imp rtlsl u.tice
especially when weighed against the crlprn's own sd
missions, as we'll other positive ard direct tesno-
ny in this case
We ar at lose TO hnd single additional item of
testimony, which the most sstuts counsellor could
urge 10 Mr. Clemens behalf.
Now, can Mr.. Clemens pretend that case like thIs
submitted TO Impartial jury, under OATH and invo
wing criminal charge, could fail to result in verdict
of 'gmAy'" BY demanding justice, at our hsnf,,
Mr. Clemens has constituted quasi jury. to
on oil the evidence before US, TO the nature OF r..
conduct In this mstter. We have thoroughly weigh.
ed all the evidence and are fully prepared to subuit
the following verdict to the revision of that tribunal of
public opinion whose additional province it is to pas.
sentence, in case the verdict shall be sustained.
Saerrard Clemens Is guilty of an act Of gro,s
treaehery t0rards Judge Brocksnbrough, perpetrqtd
under the gulSe Of personal and political friendship
he oF nm of ,,J,f;.oJ