The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-08-09
"VT6e EnaWSrr i evidently oblivion. q

erected into announcer o'"'o' W" I
most respectfully inform our neighoor .na.
Bell received a majority or the votes III
what is now the State of Virginia"
Evidently we had M reference ~,
other votes than those cast for BELL anu
BRscxIsRIpaE. 1t is equally plain ina we
were arguing from the Enquirer'S premises.
Yet 1t Is upon this extract, n nothing
else. TINT the charge of ignorance is based.
We saw nothing Of the unfairncss OF its
assertion. that having been "exposcd" in
one error, We involved ourselves In an
other. The only error VIC made then or
before was in giving the Enquirer credit for
a quality that il does not possess. We had
no idea that a paper which knew that
DorGIAs was run in Virginia by men who
rcpudiated the mit-votc in Baltimore
would claim those men rs friends of the
unit V
Here is another assertion Of the E"-
Yairo's which is positively untrue:
"The Dispatch is troubled with another
confusion of ideas. 1t does not know the
difference between a usage and a principtE.'
Now, we were just as confident when We
wrote our last article that the Enquirer
would put in this plea as we could be OF
any event iii the future. We knew there
was no other hole through which it could
escape. Yet We did not stop this hole, be-
cause We intended to expose that papers
| uufairncss. 1t had arraigncd the commit
tees for not respecting q usage" and then
said it did not regard this usage" as a
"principle." Then there was no principle
involved. But the disingenuousncss and
! disposition to cvadc the truth of which the
Enquirer was guilty consisted in It's
attempt to make the public believe that it
had not tried to revive the old party dlvi-
sions. Ii had censured the BELL men as hav-
ing been governed by their party usagcs,
and minated that they ought to have
| respected the uSagcs of the Democratic
party. We denounced all attcmptsto revive
old party divisions and the Enquirer, in
reply, said:
ave do not regard the unit-votc rs 4
party principle at all, heretofore or now
and can speak of ii without r~eviving
party"
The reader will see that the point in dis
putc in this instance was whether the En-
quhtr was "rcyiving party" not whether
the unit-vote was u /" usage" or a "prin-
ciplc." As is our practice, we adhered to
the real question, and proved from its own
columns that il had "rcyivcd party" And
vet because we were too considerable to
accuse il of trickery-hccause We would
not M,u expose its little subterfuge-it
accuses us of "confuSion Of ideas"
Once more: The Enqu1ror says, in its
usual, reckless manner
alt uhc Dispatch abandons the issuc
entirely, and addresses its whole argument
TO an attempt to prove that IT was not en-
poiieut for the committees to instruct
This assertion is as true as, and no more
so than, those we have already disposed of.
We quote from our W article:
"Thc Enqnirer will admit, We assume,
and if it will not, the public will admit for
it,
"FirSt. That if the delegates ought 10
have been instructed at all, their instruc-
tons ought to have been i'll accordance
with the will Of the people.
"Sccondly. That the committees did mol
know the will Of the people; and
"Thirdly. That the delegates do know
the will of the people,"
In a previous article, We had argued that
the committees had no power, in a legal
. sense, to instruct, they being special
agents authorized to perform only specific
duty, and not general agents with power
To act upon all questions that might arise.
Finding that the Enquircf could not apprc-
ciatc the force Of such an argument, We
laid down three propositions, which are SO
plain that n fool could not mistake their
meaning. They do not touch the question
of power in the legal sense, but they de-
monStratc that the committees could not
instruct for want of information. This is
what the Enquirer calls abandoning the
issue entirely" Let the public judge be-
tween Us.
$500