Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-11-02

In such q case, ii III ITO o'"N',
are even more odious than comparisons
1t happens that the Tenth Legion has at least
another prominent candidate for the non''aa-
ton. By what course of reasoning does the
Examiner" decide TINT MIR. Letcher Is more
honored or more faithful than Judge brocSen-
brouphy Certainly not more honored in otli-
cial station. for the Judge is invested with all
the dignity of the judicial erminc, and his own
worth does honor to its high %sanctity. Ger
tsinly not more honorea IN Unpopular estimation
for VIC are assured, by even Mr.. LctcherS
friends in the District, that Judge Broken
brough commands n larger personal popularity
there, than does their own ~favorite. In what
has Mr.. Letcher proved himself the more faith
full of the two: Certainly not in adherence to
the Democratic party, which Judge Broken
brough has never deserted and defied for the
sake Of Whiggcry and emancipationiSm. Ger
tainly not in consistent advocacy OF the inStl-
tuition of slaycry-for Judge peterborough
was Mr.. Letchcr's formidable antagonist in
| 1917, when the latter advocated the cause of
emancipation; nor can it be shown that the
Judge ever provoked a personal alteration
with a STAKEHOLDER by offensive imputations
! against shareholders rs n class.
Nor can our contemporary rely upon the fact
that Mr.. Lctcher has been endorsed by several
county meetings as their preference for the
| G~ubernatorial nomination, to prove that Mr..
Letcher is more honored and more faithful than
Judge Brockcnbrough. Everybody knows, and
| Mr.. Letcher's friends acknowledge, that the main
| advantage which he claims over Judge Brock
enbrough in the Tenth Legion. consists IN the
! fact that he is now incumbent in Congress, and
that his election as Governor would offer .
chance of promotion to all the numerous n>pi-
rants for the succession.
The EXAMINER intiuateS truthfully, that we
! do not regard the proceedings of the county
meetings which have declared in Mr.. Letcher's
favor. As indicative of his success in the Peters
| burg Convention. If "Such indications OF Mr..
| Wi<c's popularity in ls54. were followed by his
I nomination" il must be admitted that they were
much more numerous. if not more spontaneous.
| than the indications on which Mr.. Lctchcr
is obliged TO rely. Moreover. Mr.. Lcakc 5 Ill
dications Of the same sort also largely out
numbered those which Mr.. Letchcr receives now,
| and Mr.. L.eake'S indications were not follow
cd by his nomination" How many "indica-
| tion," can Mr.. Letchcr boast: DO they amount
| even TO Il bakers dozen?
Moreover, We have abundant evidence that a
number Of the endorsements received by Mr..
Lctchcr. are the result of the management Of
Interested politicians. Take two of the exam
! pies put forward by the Examiner" The rc-
solution adopted in Stafford reads as follows:
Resolved That We believe the Hon. John
! Letchcr Of Rockbridge. the faithful standard
bearer. &c. &c.. is the H"amiaodS choice Of
! the Democratic party Of this county for Gov
crnor.
Does the Examiner" entertain the same
belec: Can it BIZ supposed lint even the men
who voted OH this resolution paid attention TO
its exact working: We venture to say that
there is not n county in Virginia unanimously
in favor of the nomination Of Mr.. Lctchcr. or
Of anv one Of his competitors nor is it posi-.
bic for n county meeting in the State to ca
press such a belief. with the attention Of all
present directed to its terms. Evidently the
Trainer Of this resolution was the only man
sufficiently infatuated in Mr.. Letcher's be-
half, to entertain any such belief.
The example of Williamsburg is much more
fragrant. We have the positive assurance Of a
gentleman of high responsibility, who was a
spectator of the scene, that although some
twenty persons were present, only five or six
participated in the action of the meeting, We
also know that one of the delegates, appointed
Gin his ab>enceJ by the meeting, has declared
his intention to pay no regard whatever to its
Instructions. Will the Examiner" deny, in
the face Of these facts, that Mr.. Lctchcr's
friends have been engaged in unwarrantahle
management, by which to secure his endorse.
mcnt in county meetings:
The EXAMINER" labors hard to laugh away
the fact that the Democrats of Boone county
have entered an unmistakeable protest against
Mr.. Letcher'S nomination in any event. This,
oar cotcmporary regards. as ''one chicken
and altogether ignores the moral weight at
taching to such an unprecedented example OF
opposition to an obnoxious candidate. The
Democrats of Virginia cannot fail to rem.
der a different verdict. THEY haze nese'
yet n~omi"otcd a mnn IN opeD defiance Of the
so1enn protest ofa meeting 81 Democr0tc CT
tizcnS.
Nor does Boone county furnish the only in
stance. In Bedford the attempt was made
not to instruct for Lctcher, not even to express
a preference for his nomination, but to adopt
a mere vote of confidence, expressing q willing.
ness to support him in case he should be no mi
mated; and even this failed to receive the sane
ton Of the meeting. The attempt, too, to in.
struct for Letchcr. in Caroline, was promptly
silcnccd: and. in a majority Of other instances,
Mr.. Letcher's friends have not even v%cnturcd
the attempt.
There is no part Of the Examiners" article
of three columns. more reprehensiblc than the
attempt to imputc to the Enquirer" and indi
rcctly to Gov Wise, Il desire to prescribe those
members of the party who opposed the nomi
nation Of the Governor, in 1854. The Exam
liner" knows as well as we do, that this imputa
ton is as unjusta as it is uncallcd for. The ''Exami
ncr" knows, that SO far from indulging in any
such a spirit of objectionable malice, Govern
or Wise has even appointed to ofic, men who
made themselves conspicuous in opposition tc
his nomination.
Nor can the EXAMINER pretend to misun
dcrstand the purport Of our previous remarks
with regard to its own and Mr.. Lctcher's oppo
sition to Gov. Wisc's nomination in 1854. Tn,