Norfolk day book. [volume] (Norfolk and Portsmouth Va.) 1868-1880, 1869-04-16
WELLS WITH TWO FACES.


Our contemporary of the Virginian had
an editorial article yesterday, designed
to show by facts, arguments and infer
ences that the unblushing claim made
by Wells, that be originated, drew, and
achieved the passage of the Virginia
election bill by Congress through his
personal influence, is we'll founded.
We shall not attempt any labored or
formal reply to our cotemporary's arti-
Gle, for the subject does not admit of it,
nor is it required. We will suggest,
however, that some very palpable facts
were probably overlooked by the wri-
ter. 1t must be conceded, if the pres
ent allegations of Wells are true, that
he has proved false to the platform on
which his party placed him at Peters,
burg. The first resolution in that plat
form declares in favor of the adoption
rr--a-~-.~-~~s o-~,--~erss.sfoss wrurr-
out change or modification" His par
ty will not support him. on any other
platform and he knows it. But we are
not surprised at any course of hypocri-
sy and deception to which he may res
sort. Are we to believe he is now in
favor of new registration-that would
be to defeat himself; for we have Thad.
Stevens word for the statement that
Wells acknowledged to the Reconstruct
ton Committee that if there We're new
registration in Virginia his party stood
no chance.
We are not satisfied that cur cotem-
porary should take the word of Wells,
which is SO clearly falsifed by an exam
ination of the facts, had we time, or did
we think it necessary to produce them.
The Wing and Enquirer of Wednes-
day, both expose the assumption and
mendacity of Wells in this matter; and
we are satisfied to produce few of
their remarks.
The Enquirer says: Mr.. Wells was
opposed to 'enfranchising" the white
people of Virginia, which the Commit
tee of Nine were attempting to accom-
plish by securing the removal of the
test-oath and the disability clauses from
the Underwood constitution. This COM
mittee was also laboring to get rid of
the county organization article.
Their most formidable opponent in
Washington at this time was known to
be this same Governor" Wells.
Now add to this narrative the fact
that in the interview between the
Stearns-McKenzie committee and the
PRECEDENT the latter expressly designated
the test-oath, the disabling clauses, and
the county organization article, as the
chief Objectionable features of the con-
stitution, and promised to send a mes
sage to Congress recommending the
suOm lssiou of the constitution with a
separate vote on these clauses. The
President, mark our words, the Presi-
dent expressly poiHted out the three
clauses in question as features of the
constitution which ought to be stricken
from it, And he promised to send a
message to Congress designed to secure
the separate submission of such objec-
tiopable clauses to the people of Virgil
MIA. He did send such message.
Congress passed such bill. And now
Governor Wells claims that he was the
drafter of this bill.
Contrast this with his testimony and
declarations before the Reconstruction
Committee.
And then again if he drew that bill
(which we doubt) either he was in &C.
cord with General Grant, or he was not.
If he was, then he was against the test
oath, the disabling clauses, and the
county organization article; if he was
not, then he DECEIVED GENERAL
GRANT. He cannot get out of this
dilemma.
The Wing says: Are we to under
stand that Governor Wells means to
unto q oaipsf +ha claucac Ahiontod tn nv