The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-08-07
The Enquirer and the Committees
AGAIN. -

It's age. III AVOIDS the dow VIC s''heu
by lodging behind "the little giant
And it very we'll illustrates Its ideas OF
logic In this dodge" The DOUGLAS
delegates from Virginia In the Baltimore
Convention of 1850 being in favor OF inc
"unit vote" refused 10 60 with their COL
leagues into the BRECKINRrpaE ConVen1ioh'
and thus divided the vote of Virginia a.
They came homo and took the stump In
justification of their refusal 10 vote with
their colleagues, and the men who voted
for DorGLAs in Virginia By that act en-
dorscd their course, and ~repudiatcd the
notion that WILLIAM G.. BRowN and the
rest of the DoUaLAs boilers at Baltimore,
tif more there were-we really do not re-
member whether he was the only one) were
bound by the unit vote. Therefore, argues
the Enquirer, the votes for DOUGLAS
should be counted for the unit vote. We
wonder whom the Enquirer "got to help It"
in its extremity, We might with much
more propriety claim the whole DOUGLAS
vote as a vote against the usage of the De-
mocratic party. 1t was in fact the strong
est of proofs that the DOUGLAS men did not
consider themselves bound by any such
usage. They rcpudiated it at tho polls.
So that the figures which the Enquirer pro-
duccs only add so much to the strength OF
our argument. We advise it to shut up
its scrap-book. Again the Enquirer asks:
III A appoints B to act for C, which IS the
greater exercise Of authority, 10 give h cure
blanche, or to put Limitations on HIM
This is begging the question. Hero is
the real question:
If A requests B to act for c, and b
knows what C wants him to do, while A is
totally ignorant of C's wishes, would it not
be "presumptuous" in A to undertake 10
instruct Bi
The Enquirer'S other questions are all
hascd upon the same mistaken idea OF the
facts of the case as the one we have cor
rectlv stated, and need no other notice.
That journal cannot or will not under
stand these facts, and argues constantly
from false premises. The. people wanted
delegates appointed to Philadelphia to
represent their opinions and wishes. The
committees, for convenience sake, were
allowed to name these delegates. But the
committees were not authorized to III
struct them, and, in point of fact, did not
know the wishes of the people as we'll as
the delegates selected for the several dis
tricts. 1t was impossible that the commit
tees could be as well acquainted rs the
delegates themselves with the sentiments
of the people. Yet the Enquirer thinks
they ought to have instructed the dele
rates as to the wishes of the people! Let
II, give Il n lesson. The Enquirer will adj
nit. we assume, and if it will not, the pub
tic will admit for it
First. That if the delegates ought to
have been instructed at all, their instruc-
tons ought to have been in accordance
with the will of the people.
Secondly. That the committees did not
know the will of the people and
Thirdly. That the delegates do know the
will of the people.
OF these three propositions, the first is
undesirable or, if the Enquirer denies its
soundncss, it admits thereby that it does
not desire to have the popular will carried
out at Philadelphia. The second has been
proved BY the testimony of the gentlemen
composing the committees, and needs no
argument. The third we cannot prove ;
but neither can the Enquirer disprovc it.
And if it could, it would thereby only
prove that the delegates and the commit
tees are alike ignorant of the will of the
people. In the name, then, Of reason,
could the committees tell the delegates
wha, the committees did not know them
selves? If the ENQUIRER "tindS it hard "
to eyade the force of this "losic," it may
get Mr.. TYLER to help it.
Another fact: WILLIAM c. RlvEs, j. w.
BRocKESBRoUGH, J. l.. MARYE, Jr, THOMAS
5. FLorRyoY, WALLER X. STAPLES, f. W.
HrpARp, EDMUND FoNTAINE, GEoEGEB Blow,
WILLIAM NJ. TREDwAY, Il. ii. PARKER,
and their colleagues, are men in whose
keeping the honor and interests of Eirgi-
MIA will he as safe as in that Of those
who proposed to instruct them. And
surely they will be better qualified to judge
at Philadelphia, where they will become
acquainted with all the facts of the situa-
ton, as to the proper course to pursue,
than Messrs. AUGUST and TYLER were in
Richmond two weeks before the day for
the meeting of the Convention.
The following paragraphs call for no
comment
From the Enquirer OF Monday.
I'VE do not regard the unit vote ~ a purity pm.
chile II, all, heretofore or now, and can speak OF II
without reSivins party
From the Enquirer Of Friday.
!, "Thev may have ccnformed TO the usages 70
which Mr.. Daniel, AMI Mr.. MacfaTland, and Mr..
Ellyson, and Other members of the minority party
TWhissl OF old times were most accustomed. IL
would perhaps have been delicate and proper In
these gentlemen 10 have dtJsrred u the long enter.
IDemocra,sl Of the people of Virginia, for whom
they were acting on the question OF II unit vote
butthey lbeing Whigsl had been accustomed to
the opposite