Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-03-07

furnish us a full statement Of the ma',er Tor the
public press"
JONI LErcnIR To On. RrfFNER
Letchor and the Ruffner Pamphlet Again
The Republican started out some time since
with the declaration that Lechcr was cnitless IN
the matter Of the Rnffner Address, and has per
sisted s., long in this opinion, that we really be-
lieve it has come to think tia, possibly Honest
John is not rc.ponsbe for tins hcresy. In u long
labored and illogical article on Saturday. 1t denies
in toto Letcher's responsibility III the Premises
alleging that il makes the denial upon the an
thority of John Lctcher himself, whose rnm +"
uno,estion1bie" We read Is admit that truth Is
questionable" always no matter hywh'm cnun-
cia;ed but we canuo, as full, concede that every
assertion of John Letcher is unique S'l"nahlo
truth Unfortunately for Honest John and
his endorsers he is en'ang'cd ~ net work oil
evidence sufficient to emharrnss a more ingenious
LAWYER than himself. In addition e Leehers
UNQUALIFIED endorsement of an "ahle and un"n-
swerablc argument" ma,e ly DR.. Rulner in ia
yor of the abolition Of slavery in Western Virgin
ia and his expressed desle tat the pubic mind
should be brought to n correct conclusion upon
the momentous subject : To see that slavery
ougM to be abolished, if hy no other means, by
division Of the Sta,e-we have tho direct estimo-
nv of DR.. Rufncr, that he was not confined
strictly to the views then expressed, and that his
pamphlet was written coniormably to the desire
expressed in the letter.
We doubt very much whether Mr.. Lechcr ever
wrote out any speech that he made in Congress.
precisely as it had been delivered, but, as is usu-
al, always took the liberty Of introducing any
new matter TINT would strengthen the general OBJ
iects had in view IN the delivery of the speech.
1t is enough to know that hc o'iorse( Tic object
contemplated by D.. Ru}ac,' IN his o,d' and
printed speech, aud it is to tn, lint We hol him.
The bare fact tina, he a,yio Hg, as we think,
refused 70 pay his shnre u. tie expense incurred
bv printing the speech, may have hecn, and prob
ably was, dictated by more Mid motives than a
mere nou-concurrence i'll nj It's sentiments, and
it was incumbent on him assign his reasons for
this strange conduct. which DR.. Eulfncr declares
he never did l. it reasonable to suppose
that if Letcher had publicly expressed his dlshp-
probation Of the sentiments contained in the Ruff.
ner pamphlet tho ol, iect Of which we know no
approved, would not have 1.-THE ears Of tho
author Of that pamphlet, who was living in the
same little town, The fact that Letcher's name
was prefxed to the address. aud gave it added
weight to the extent # his influence throughout
the community. demanded that in justice to him
eef, to his friends, and to "nnlucstionable truth,
he should have publish cd his dissent to it's OBJ
noxious doctrines. lie never did this until recent
ly, and every effort to relieve him of this foul
stain upon his reputation public man, will be
futile, impotent and vain
The Republican refers 10 the record Of Mr.. Cog
gin on the Texas question. which brings up to our
mind bit Of history touching that question, with
which propose TO refresh our Democratic
friends.
After the rejection of the Treaty for the annex
alton of Texas. various bills aud iolnt resolutions
were offered in both Houses Of Congress iocking
still to the contamination Of this mclsure-.
Amongst them was an amendment, offered by Mr..
Brown, of Tennessee, in the words following:
And such States as may be forlued cut of tina
portion Of the territory lTeyaSl lying South
800 80 north latitude commonly known rs tn
Missouri Compromise line, shall he admitted int
the Union with without slavery. IN the peopl
OF each State asking permission may desire
To this proposition, Mr.. Douglas of Illinois
1.-THE author Of the nonnteryention doetrine) OF
fered the following modification 10 cone in afte
the last clause:
And in such States as shall he formed out
said territory, north of said Missouri comproms
line, slavery or Involuntary serr,t,de except +.
crime, shau be prohibited"
Mr.. Brown accepted this mobilization of hi
amendment and it was adopted in Committee
the whole, by the votes Of Democratic membe,
from Virginia, voting with Douglas. Weller, an
other Northern Democrats, whilst Vim. L. Go,
gin voted against it-voted against excludin
Southern men with their property, from any teri
tory to be acquired by the United States, Mort
Of 36o 30>, commonly known as the Missou
Compromise line.
He thus voted against the application of a Wi
mot Proyso to tbs territories of the nation again,
the application Of principle that was afterwaro
incorporated into q territorial bill and sanctione
By Southern Democratic President! Our ODDS
nspts therefore welcome to all the capitr
they can make ont Of Mr.. Goggin's Texas RECORD
and whilst We impsach John Letcher for his wi
hngness to abolish slavery in Virginia, and eve
70 divide the State to effect his purpose. we ca
point proudly and defantly to the record of GU
candidate, who. in Congress, voted against eiyip
ND an empire devoted to slavery.
Which is the better record and the more acce,
table to Southern men!
We would canton all who buy Pain Killer
bo raful and for par.u n..;,,