Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-03-23
The Louisa Meeting.

li'IiELN ANStSNkSe ~hNSi NAS
tr:,n, is inculnben. on the proper Legislative autho
ii.y thereof.
The Louisn Meeting.
The accompanying communication from
MeSsrs. James L. Gordon and George l.. Cor
don, Of Louisa county, deserves something moro
at our hands than the hurried notice which vi
have time to beStow Oh its contents. We re-
greet extremely that VIC IRE obligcdto enter into
anything like public debate with these gentle
men. 1t is true, that in the present contest
between the friends Of the two candidates pro
minent in Virginia for the nomination at
Charleston, we cannot but regard our twoc cores
pondents As seriously differing from our views.
We know, that although not 'inimical to Cover
nor Wise" and ready to support him with
zeal and a~lacrity' 'ifhc be the nominee Of the
Charleston Contention" yet they do not prefer
his nomination by that convention on the
other hand, they prefer and are laboring to Sc
cure the nomination Of the only competitor who
can at all compete with him in Virginia for that
nomination. Yet, while thus recognizing them as
differing from It's for the time being, we still re-
clrd them as personal friends, entitled to q degree
OF respect and esteem far beyond that which we
entertain for 4 majority Of the political leaders
with whom they are now cooperating. More.
over, they are both of them very near and dear
10 one for whom We cherish the warlnest per
sonal friendship, and who is connected with
Us in the closest ties of party association
Wnlle, then, our duty requires that we shall
speak out plainly on the subject before us, We
nre careful to avoid every form Of expression
which might wound the senSibilities Of our
correspondents, 20 both Of whom we give at
once the full assurance that we have no desire
pricty Of the moii1eS which have actuatet their
conduct.
A. to the asserted attempt Of the supporters
Of the Substitute 10 weary out its opponents
by a long diScussion-we know that such was
the homes, opinion OF honest eye witnesscS-by
whom we have been informed that Z number OF
Democrats from distant parts of the county
were wcaricd out and did leave the meeting
That our two correspondents did not intend
to produce such 4 result, their own statement
is OF course sufficient to produce the conviction
in our minds.
The fact that tho advocates Of the resolution
OF instruction appealed to the Wise men" to
vote down the substitute, furnishes, as we con-
ceive, TO just ground Of complaint. No ap-
peal could have been f,ircr, moro just, or more
necessary under the circumstances
The opinion expressed by our correspondents
that "it is not true that a large majority Of that
meeting wero in favor Of instructions" is cvi.
IDENTIFY based upon their impression as to the
result Of the rira rocs vote; It Is, however
honestly entertained, 4 mere opinion, and one,
from which, with 4 number Of concurrent,
written ard We, bal statements Of facts, as well
rs opinions, before US, we are obliged to differ.
So we must differ from the opinion further
expressed, that the meeting was "unqnest7o"a'
bly," broken up 10y the advocates Of instruc'
tons. Nay. We are firmly convinced that the
meeting was 'unqucstionablv" broken up ny
the 0pponeatS Of instructions.
To vindicatc the accuracy Of our own opln-
ion on these two points, we need only refer TO
the published statement, which has not given
rise 10 a word CT denial or complaint, and
which is certified to us under the signatures 0!
the President and Secretary Of the meeting,
both gentlemen Of unimpeached fairness and
v~cracity, and the former Of whom, we arc in
formed, was called to the chair by the sup
po-,ers Of Mr.. Hunter, and, as we are inform
cd, himself prefers Mr.. Hunters nomination to
that Of Gov. Wise.
We quote verbatim from the official account
Of the meeting:
AFTER a lengthy discussion of the resolutions
and the substitute, in which the substitute was
advocated at much length and with great earn
estness, by MeSSrS. Thomas S. Watson. George
L. Gordon. James l.. Gordon and F.. Y. Win
ston, and opposed by Captain Andrew j. Mel
son. Or. John B. Anderson and r. 3. Waddy.
the vote was taken on the substitute, and the
Chair decided that it was lost. \ doubt was
raised as to the correctness OF the decision o.
the Chair. The meeting being 4 very large
one. it was proposed that the friends OF Henry
\. Wise retire from the Court House, in order
that 4 count might Ue Eau. hHtleui'Vn "
large majority OF the meeting left the Court
House, a large number of those advocating the
substitute following, which broke up the meet
ing"
w suhmit to public judgment that this state
men, Of facts clearly indicates that a large ma.
jority Of the meeting preferred the nomination
OF Henry 4. Wise for the Presidency, and that
they desired this preference to be made known,
and further desired to make this preference
imperative on their representatives at the Dis
trict Convention.
We further submit, that the same statement
shows that the opponents Of the substitute
proposed to Withdraw temporarily from the
room, for the fair and generous purpose Of ia
cilitating q count of the votes Of their oppo-
nents, in the most convenient manner possible
"a proceeding to which the Chairman made
no objection, one to which no reasonable objec.
ton could be made by any member Of the
meeting, and which the Chairman had no right