Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-04-29
Gorgin and Montague.

HORRln ana mOHtubuc'
Some Of the Imposition Journals arc trying to
make a little political capital by affirming that
Mr.. Goepin has declined to meet Montague in dis
cussion--declined to meet him because he Is
afraid II seems to US that this n poor compliment
they arc paying to Mr.. Lctchcr. After Mr.. Cog
gin has pursued Mr.. Le;cler all over the State.
and encountered him Mt every opportunity, to ne
cuse him of being afraid 10 meet Montague" Is
simply ridiculous DO ID, lmposionlsts mean
to saw that Montague is a more formidable man
than Letcher! Ifno, how can they charge Cog
gin with being afraid to meet hun, alter nc mas
pursued Le,chcr all over the State They cannot
make such charge without gross impn'aton
upon Mr. Letcher's capacity and ability.
But the truth is. Mr. GoGgn isnot afraid to
meet Montague We do not believe that the man
is vet born that William l.. GoEgin Is 9tfdm I"
meet in discussion. lie does not know what lear
is Armed with the weapons Of TRUTH and justice,
he il able to encounter men infinitely above the
meagre capacity OF the Red Fox of Mi5Idle-cx. The
"mens sibi eonscia ,ect'' would enable him to ap.
proach, with daun,lcss front. the first and best
orators of the Imposition.
We published yesterday from the Norfolk Her
add the terms upon which Mr.. Gosgin Is willing
to meet Montague. Those term, involve II con-
cesson which, in our opinion, is more than Mr.
Goggin ought to have yielded. For onro"n part,
we hesitate not to say that Mr.. Gossin is under
no obligations rhaterer to meet Montague III dis
cussion. We're we in his place, we should per
emptorily refuse to meet Mr.. Montague upon any
terms.
NJ II, nuli-
date for the same Office for which Mr.. Goggln IS.
Mr.. Goggin is trying to defect Mr., lctcher-not
Mr. Montague. lie is trying to defeat Mr. Letch'
err upon the lat,er's own record as aA'ubhc man.
1t is absurd to suppose he can produce the Same
effect in Mr.. Letchers absence, AS if he were pre-
sent. 1t is ridiculous to suppose that the people
will consent to u defence Of Mr. Letcher's record
from any other man than M. Letche9 himself
Moreover, Mr.. Goggin would be placed at deer
ded disadvantage in being compelled to accept
whatever defence Montague might chose to make
for an absent man.
Besides this would it be proper in Mr.. Gogsin
to attack Mr.. Letchers record as vigorously, du-
ring his absence, as f he were present? People
would cxcam at once--howcver unI ust the accu-
sation-that he was taking advantage Of that alb
sence William L. Goggin is not the man to do n
thing of that sort.
But there is another reason more wciehty than
all of the others. 1t is this. We lave heard Mr..
Montague frequently in debate. We have also
heard most Of the other public speakers, not only
of Virginia, but of the Union We are decidedly
of opinion that Robert l.. Montague is the most
unfair man in discussion that it has been our
fortune to listen to. Utterly reckless of his state
entsAdisingenuous-:u nnng-au adept in spe
cial peading-grossly discourteous to the Oppo-
sition US party-and with capacity for misrep
resenting and misapplying facts far beyond that
of any other man we ever heard-he is a man
whom any one might with entire proprety, re.
fuse absolutely to meet in debate. As any
gentleman would decline to proffer the hospi'ali-
ties Of his house to one who is grossly regardless
Of the proprieties and conyenonalites OF good 90
cisty, so might any public speaker be justified in
declining to meet upon equal terms public spea-
ker who has not the remotest conception of the
obligations Of fairness and courtesy and lberality
The way in which Montague discusses public
questions. rs We have heard him discuss them, is a
reproach and Disgrace to our institution of pop
ular oratory.
Mr.. Letcher is, unfortunately, sick. Infinitely
superior to Montague in ability, he is also inf
nitely his superior in the courteses Of debate and
the obligations Of gentlemanly propriety. The
canvass between Gogein and Letcher has been
pleasant and agreeable. The tie Of personal
friendship has united two men who are antipodcs
in everything else No such relations could by
possibility, exist between Goggin and Montague
1t would be canvass. owing to the peculiar tenn
temperament and unfair disposition of Mr.. Mon
tague, marked by bad blood, i'll temper. and dis
agreeable incidents generally. 1t would be nc
satisfaction to Mr.. Goggin to engage in discus
sion with man who is as reckless of his state
ments and as disingeuuous in his application OIL
facts, as Robert L. Montague.
Mr.. Goggin. we think, would have been entire
ly justified in refusing to meet Mr.. Montague Al
all. But he has, nevertheless consented to NEE
him upon certain fair and just conditions. Tn,
Richmond Enquirer thinks that Montague will
follow up Mr.. Goggin any hox--and speak a ,e
him upon his own hook. II Mr. Goggin speak
all day, MIR. Montague will speak all night. v.
rywell. Lot Montague play that game b
choose. There will be no objecton-but let Nj
Montague take care that he keep civil tongue