Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1863-05-28
Tue Richmond Enquirer.

We dislike newspaper controversies any time although
we have always been able toavod them. We regard
them peculiarly out of place now and therefore, in
ferrng to the Enquirer do with idea of entering
upon any discussion We shall be brief and merely refer
to the facts ashley exist.
The Enquirer of Saturday, 23rd instant contains
communication the signature of "a Virgnian, dated
May 18TH the camp fredericksburg and paying
high tribute the gaanry of North Carolina troops 10
the battle Charlottesville. The Enquirer also
ains an editorial article headed To Correspondents and
devoted especially to Ygnan in which that correspon
taken task for presuming call in question the
accuracy of sta ement made by former correspondent
of the Enquirer in reference to the brgades composing the
division commanded by General RoDEs formerly D, q.
HnLs) 1t is alleged by Virginian" that the correspon-
dent referred to asserts that this division which bore
conspicuous part composed of Georgans, Alabami-
ans MaryIanders and Virgnians This assertion virgni
an to be incorrect, the division composed
of Alabama brigade two Georgia brgades, and two
North Carolina brigades. Virgnian thinks that Justice
noble State requires that this (Which he
unintentionaD should corrected The Enquirer editor
ally denies that any Of its correspondents made such
take and says that " Wilmington, n c. paper contained
most unnecessary and unjust fling at the Enquirer for
this alleged statement" Now the Wilmington N. c..
paper referred to- the Jo17al-uSt have been the
Journal for the simple that there other paper
published here at this time
What is stigmatsed as a most unnecessary and uD1s
fling, was contained in communication written by and
signed IAN OceEi seng forth the true facts of the
We have file OF the Enquirer before US and cannot
therefore pronounce after personal examination of such
file, the accuracy naccuracy our
we'll the correspondent of the Enquirer ITSELF in
tbuting the first incorrect and far North Carolina is
concerned exceedingly unjust statement correspon.
dent of that paper but while have idea that its
ductors would knowingly deny suppress the truth
think it almost, not altogether that intel
gent correspondents from different States writing indepen
IDENTIFY of each other, Could have committed the
of attributiEg 20 the Enquirer q positive
statement which never appeared in its columns
Indeed, the Enquirer itself to have had
some such idea before it, since Immediately after its i'll
natured disclaimer proceeds to break the of what
1t had already averred did not exist 1t says the whole
matter corTecug of of its correspondents
and doing justice 10 gallant troops is SaH-a little of
Tdir; and if the statement has been made what wronp
what injustice has been done ?! Perhaps Enquirer may
think that II Is SlaQ-a little AFFAIR, to correct il ms
tee. others might think and quite reasonably that
the SnGHeS-he tercS rather apperta:ned to tie per-
SISting Ia or the defending such iniustice
All men and ali papers liable to mistakes. We do
not complain of the EhQu any other psper On that
account although may think unfortunate that tbese
mistakes generally take direction but we do CON-
1esa that the King Cambyses vein iaduged IN tv IN.
Enquirer IN this matter, would strike highly Offensive
were IL not supremely ridiculous.