Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-09-10
THE SOUTH" AND MR.. YANCEY.

In its article of yesterday, "The South" furnishes
the following e1pisna1oa o'''' char2e OF want OF
caudor imputed to MIR. Yancey:
I'VE only intended to maintain that Mr.. Ysncey'-
note gave assnr7nce, between hin-sel' and tie
editor Of The South. that his request with regsrd I"
The publication Of his communicative only contsmpla
ted its appearance in the Enquirer IN the event o
refusal TO insert il. whereas IN fact IL was aread,
understood between MIR. fsncey and the Enquirer
that his letter should appear in that paper under
any circumstances. Ii the concealment OF this
private request to Mr.. Tyler, in contrast with
the evident implication in Mr. Yanceys note {"
The South that his communication was intended
for the Enquirer only in The event OF our refusa
TO insert it. which nrovoked US to mpute want o.
csnd0r TO Mr.. Yancey.
All he could engage, and all we understood him tc
imply, was, tina, 30 far M hs request went. he roli
cited rhs publication Of his letter by the enquirer
only ia the event OF IFS rejection ny The South
But il appears that by private note he had asked III
admission into the Enquirer even though VIZ con
sened 10 insert it, This Is the circumstances to which
We attached the epithet uncandid."
We shou not again advert to this matter, were
il not that the concluding paragraph of "The South's
article intended to invite renewed expression
of opinion on our part. The above explanation il
entirely to- diffuss to be precisely integible u
it is intended to state that Mr.. Ynncey simply re
quested 'The South" in case it should refuse put.
cation, to hand over his communication to The "En.
quirer,' without intimating whether he had or hsc
not made auy further request of the Enquirer, O.
course the charge Of want Of candor imputed Il
Mr.. Ysncey must be considered "a Withdrawn.
n it is intended to state that Mr.. Ysncey con :
mtted an impropristy by merely emitting Il
inform "The South Of his request, that tn
Enquirer" would reproduce bis letter after iis
publication in "The South" VIZ deny the justic,
of any such charge of improperly. Mr.. YanceI
had perfect right request the "Euquirer," as well
I'd every other paper in the Union to reproduce the
article in question, and wss under no obligation Of
Justice or courtesy, to advise The South OF any
such request. II it ID intended to state that Mr..
Yancey In his private note addressed to The South"
denied, by implication otherwise, having made
such request of the Enquirer" then We are obliged
to repeat that ,his inputson OF a want of cendor 10
70 entirely devoid Of reasonable pretexl, as TO Offer
very strong evidence Of a similar deficiency in the
accuser himself. Here is Mr.. Ysuceys private note;
tho public can decide whether it contains any impll-
cation at all cf such denial:
Mr. Pryor. request you publish this. my defence
against yoir structures in The SOUTH have writ III
constant physical pain and copy make palmer
80 be continued good point at which 10 divide IT, II 700
long number If you should refuse me the justice
publishing H. request that II he Landef over 10 the
editors OF the Richmond Enquirer" Yours. &c.
w. l.. YANCEY.
After receiving this letter, " The South was in
formed that Mr. Yaneey bad addressed an additional
request to the Enqurer" to reproduce his defence
in case it should be published in The South" The
latter paper attempts justify its refusal to pub
If tLufh Mr. Van.
cey failed TO inform The South Of this request
made of the Enquirer which piece of inforna.
fiou if extended to "rhe South" ought TO have in
huenced its agreement or refusal to publish ihs 10
fence, about as much Is would An sccarsts detail oi
the quantity and quality of medical appliances with
which Mr.. Yancey was at that moment surrounded
"rhe South" intimatss that whatever may be our
opinion as to iis candor there was no Necessity
tor its public expression We think otherwise When
an editor of the Enquirer, with the advice and con
sent of bis associate undertook 10 communicate with
The South" in behalf Of Mr.. Yancey, Wa certainly
entered into an implied agreement to defend hs con-
nection with the transaction from unjust imputaon.
Moreover, when an attempt at deceit WAS imputed to
him. II necessarily involved supposed completely OF
two edors of The Enquirer" and this whether The
South" jniend>d or did not intend to extend the
chargs 10 them. To rsbut efncually aud thorough
ly this charge to prove it to be devoid Of all
reasonable pretext, sse obliged TO throw back the
suggestion of want of csndor on the shoulders
Of Mr.. Ysncey's sccuser, either directly, or by
inueudo. We chose the more open cou'a-'
simply because 1t was the fairest While we regret
any dissgreeable feeling which this may have occa'
stoned We must still contend that not responsi
bis for the initiation Of unpleasant imputation and
are perfectly willing to submit the decision ct The
whole matter to the candid judgment OF We'll H.
formed and impartial public.