Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1859-04-13
From the Lexington Ga2cttc.
"Letcher Hits Mr. Goggin another Crush
ing Blow"

ing Blow"
In reference to the discussion h.tween Messrs.
I.ctcher and Goggin at Wythc,lle the Lynchburs
Republican says:
"LrrcurH lllr5GonGN AxorngH CaN sitrNo Blow,
Mr.. Gogcin nrraigncd Mr. letchc upon the charge of
having endorsed the Rulner pamphlet Mr. leichcr
denied thecharge and said that t,e iulincr pamphlet
was very different document from the address of
Rufnrr Nhich gave origin to ii. He said that what
ever mny hnlc been his view In ~. upon the ga.
ject OF l'crv he had freely AMI lly r,cantcd them
and n 'tha' ever, just and generous mind ought
TO bc sau-bed with hs position, h"gEin howes-
retot"d MIR Letche', vast last MN IN thc world
To sgn him for his correction with the Rnilncr
pamphlet f'r SAID he the letter asking tue puhcn,on
NJ thai i d,,durni, ,r,iS ,er.1a b., 4m,i u, Dpttic
Moore, F,g,a lraig Eecor IN 1872 mio has rofot 10
by Mr.. as GVa and ne w4oie WHe Parfo o, jirpm-
"a!
"Thi. lick knockcI the breath out ofGoggin for AT
least five minutes aud IT wn.with great difficulty that
he G.. up him on tie ntNltennd. llewnsron,ict
I'd before an intelligent nudrace OF having ,otcd IN
1852 ,oG the author II the letter nsktv the puhhcl
ton of 90, nufncr pamphlci--n map VINO endorsed
that pamnnet out aud out-whilcuu in ls5. he pre-
tend, to he enst,ry alive the rights ana honor
ofNrginn us not to be willing to trust I.ctcherl"
As the lai,y star -aw tit in its issue of last
week to publish the above, We presume tint the
Star relies upon the statement ms n truo account
of whnt Ietchcr said, and susans him in making
n shift of ,lai sort The Siar may consider il
quite "crnshng blow to Mr.. Goggin but it is
one which viii rocoil with terrible effect upon Mr..
Letcher if it is true that he made tho declaration
which the Rrpnblican 80 exultnntly attributes to
him. Did not the editor OF tho Star know, at the
time he published tho Republican article, that it
could not be sustained by the truth Of history ??
Did not, and does not, the Sor know TINT Samuel
Mellow ell Moore, Esq. was not a Whig Elcctor
in 1882 and consequently was not voted tor by
Mr.. Gnggin aud the whole Whgpaity OF Nirginln?
II our nciehb n has forgotten who was the Scott
Elrctor for this district in sl2, we do notsupposo
that Mr.. Ln,chcr's memory fails him in regard to
it. A litlc incident occurred which, We doubt
not left m ndelible impression on his mind ms to
who was the Nhg Elector in 1853. During TINT
canvass Mr.. Lntchcr, ns is usual with the Demo
cratic speakers. raised the cry of ab"litionsm
NJ 2nnst Gcn. Scott, when the Wang Elcrtor knock
ed the breath out of him for ut least five minutes"
b, 4rringing tlc Rufner pamphlet on him.
We do not know whether or not Mr.. Moore
wro'e the letter requesting the publication of Dir.
ku er's address; but we d. know that Mr.. Letch-
or sisncd that letter and that Mr.. Moore was MT
a VII. Prcsid"n,nl Elector in 1862. But tn"
LyurLburg Repnbiican and Tdhey STIR represent
Mr.. Letrler us saying that Mr.. Moore was both
the author Of he letter and Wing ElectUr in the
s. 80, vas. NV. how does our ncighbor pro-
,,f =. get Mr.. Letchero out of the ugly predicn-
inoi ol having publicly inserted whnt was not 50?
1t won't do for our neiyiibor to say hat the Lynch
burg hrpabiican is mistaken about Mr.. Letchers
declaration. II the Repnbi,cm was mistaken.
why did our neighhor publish as n fact what he
knew to he q mistake?
1t is crushing blow" is it? Well, we think
so too. But it falls on Mr., Letcher's own head
Il our ncighhor did not know who the Whig Elec-
tor for this district was in 1852 he ought to have
a>certainei that fact before he caught up the
f.ynchburg Repubiieans statement, which plnces
Mr.. Ietcher in anything else than pleasant pre-
dicament. Will our neighbor be so good as to
refresh his memory little, and tell his readers
who the Whis elector orths district was in 1852?
IF he dose he will show thu, this crushing blow"
falls with laundering whack on tho head Of
somebody who was put forward by the Petersburg
Convention.
Mr. Moore WAS q Wing elector in the canvass Of
l94S, but in that snme campaign Mr.. Letcher was
the D. mocratc clector, that Mr.. Goggin. had.
he refused to vote for the Whig ticket, would have
found sgner Of the RuHfner pamphlet on the
Dn,nocrnt;c ticket