Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-11-19
A REPLY 10 "THE SOUTH"

/ the entire editorial article Oh Inc oouth, OF
Monday last That paper forgcts to remark
that the article in the Enquirer" Of which ii
complains was written in reply to previous
imputations made by 1.-THE South"
So far as The South" attempts to divert us
from the discussion of its course, and that Of
its Editor, by complaints against ourselves, we
shall treat its remarks with entire indifference.
We shall not eondescend to appeal to the pub
lie for an endorsement Of our character for
magnanimity or Christian forbearance.
To only one remark, concerning our own po-
sition, do We find it necessary to refer. 1.-THE
South informs its readers, that ait is only q
few days since he (the Editor Of tie Enquirer
protested present inability to engage in violent
alterations" "The South" will not pretend
to say that we have given to its Editor, or to
any one soever, private statement Of this ma
ture 1t evidently refers to some remarks con-
tanned in late editorial Of the Enquirer" of
which THE South" entirely mistakes the pur-
port and intent When the Richmond "Ex-
aminer" appealed to us to make publication
which we deemed unnecessary, we refused,
alleging, among other reasons an unwilling
ness to seek violent alterations, and presented
motives which made it especially our duty to
avoid them at present But we never did protest
an inability" to meet the necessity Of personal
alteration whenever such necessity should
arise Thus recognising no such necessity in
this instance, We have sought no such alterca-
ton with the Editor Of 1.-THE South but We
give him to understand, at once, that if he shall
seek one with us, he will be met by no "pro-
test of inability"
THE South still insists that Governor Wise
was obnoxious to considerable minority, of
whom no small proportion declared an unwil-
lingness to acquiesce in his nomination" The
state Of affairs in tho Staunton Convention is
first referred to, in support Of this statement
To whom was Governor Wise "obnoxious" )"
there? Chiefly to every man Of the Know
Nothings, who were in the Convention who
were srorn to betray the Democratic party at
the time Of the nomination, and who after
wards voted against the whole Democratic
| ticket.
1t is also urged that the Richmond Exam
| iner,' ''avowed reluctance to accept the nom-
inee of the Staunton Convention" We do
pretend that this paper did not represent the
feeling Of considerable minority among the
Democracy of the State" And, We know that
it was finally obliged by the course and per-
suasions of its own immediate friends, to come
forward in strong and apparently cordial
support Of the party nominee.
Again, THE South" announces that Cover
nor Wise ran behind his associates on the
State ticket" This statement is made with
out reference to the record ofthe vote returned
which affords positive denial OF the assertion
This record is nothing less than the official re-
turns corrected by reference to the poll books
themselves.
It is true that the legislative committee, sp-
pointed for the scrutiny Of the returns, finding
large and unmistakcable majority for the
Democratic ticket naturally avoided minute
examination, as unnecessary as it was tedious,
and made the report to which "The South" OIL.
ludes. Let us see whether even this errone-
GUS statement Of the vote will sustain the
obnoxious" assertion of ''The South" The
legislative report states as follows: Wise SO, 275,
McComas s3,50s, Bocock s3,56s.
Thus, Governor Wise is shown to have run
only 293 votes behind his foremost associate
Can this 29S votes be accurately described as
constituting ''consideraJle minority" or even
"large proportion" ofa considerable minority
Of vote exceeding $4,000?
But closer examination will satisfy 1.-THE
South that, to the extent Of the records,
Governor Wise certainly ran ahead Of one,
and, probably, Of both his associates. The
legislative scrutiny Of the returns was hurried
and imperfect a subsequent examination of
the returns from Mason county shows them to
be made out in the following erroneous man.
ner:
ya";,ov T:s 81 81 ssGem'' ssse IS Psssss' PsSa SO
According to this, it would appear that
county remote from Mr.. Bococks place Of resi-
dence where he was not personally known,
and where the opposition party had clear
majority of nearly 400, gave him majority
of 396 votes over the opposition candidate.
The error is explained by the fact that in
copying the result from the poll-books, the
officer who made the returns accidentally
transposed the votes of Mcssrs. Patton and Bo-
cock. Thus, Governor Wise received the
largest Democratic vote in Marion. Mr.. Bo-
cock received only 1886 votes, or the smallest
vote cast in the county; and his entire vote,
according to the corrected returns, stands at
s3,lT2.
Moreover, careful scrutiny and correction
of the votes for Wise and Flournoy, made by
the Clerk of the Senate, for his own information,
some time after the report Of the legislative COM
mittee, shows that Governor Wise received %
votes beyond that declared by the committees
announcement With these corrections the vote
stands thus: Wise. S3,343; McComas s3,50S;
Bocock, S3,172 Thus Wise had majority OF
III votes over Bocock; and McComas l 60 votes
over Wise; the average vote Of the party was
81, ,34l, which Wise exceeded by two votes
The average difference among the votes Of the
three candidates was but l6S, or about ONE
FIVE nuSDREDTM PAKr OF oSs PER CENT. on THE
AVERAGE VOTE or THE PARTY. Can it be rea-
sonably pretended that this affords any evil
dence that Mr. Wise, or Mr. Bocock either, was
obnoxious to o considerable minority Of the
partys"
But this is not all. Its more than probable
that the legislative committee made mistake
in calculating the vote for Lieutenant Governor,
as we'll as in the case of the other two State
officers. and that McC Comas did not obtain ina