The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-09-30


We assure the Dispatch that we do "give
It credit for a sincere desire to promote the
best interests Of Virginia"
And now for its catcchism OF yesterday
1t asks us
/. Does the Enquirer wish to postpone
the senatorial election for the purpose OF
securing hereafter senators who will be OBJ
ectionable TO the majority Of the members
Of the Senate?
.. Would it favor the election OF any dis
qualified man, or of any man who could not
take the test-oath?
Ans,rer: The question is carelesslV
worded but we will answer that we are
opposed to the election Of men who cannot
take their seats at once. as.
3. Or does it desire merely to keep within
the limits prescribed by Mr.. HoarI Ii Mr.
Hoar should come out with an opinion de-
clarinc that the Legislature ought to elect
senator's, will it call upon that body TO per-
Ansarer: We shall-Enquircr Of yester-
day.
The Enouirer's candid answers to our
questions show that that paper and the Dis
patch agree on all the points touched by
those questions. We are pleased to find
that such is the fact. Our neighbor as /" emf
nently practical"
But the Enquirer thinks that we have
changed ground. Not at all. We are still
in favor of " giving General GRANT proof
Of our appreciation Of the favor by which
&" he enabled us to throw off the terrible
20 weight of the iron-clad oath and the dis
" Embellishments" How? Surely not by
electing a man who desired to keep this ter
rible weight upon us. We would like to
show General GRANT that we are grateful
for liberal act. We hold that the best
mode of manifesting this gratitude would be
by the election of one Of his friends who
aided us in throwing off the yoke Of the test
oath-not one who opposed his liberal pol
icy. There is no inconsistency in our course.
Let us illustrate. We advocated the election
ofWALKER because he was atrue Republican
and acceptable to General GRANT, al
though WELLS also claimed to lie q Repub-
Iican, and was understood to be General
GRANTS choice for Governor Of Virginia.
Didwe well! Ought we to have voted for
him to WALKER? Did our logic lead up to
his conclusion? Were our words and acts
inconsistent? Did the advocacy Of WALKER 5
election because he was o Republican and
acceptable to General GRANT give anybody
good reason TO say that we ought, according
to our argument, to have supported WELLS
In word, was not this the position Of the
Enquirer And if there was no inconsist.
ency in the Enqutrer's preference OF
WALKER to WELLS, how can there be any
in our preference Of WILLIAMS to SHARPE
"Logic is logic, that's all, say" is the
ending Of OLIVER WENDELL HOLINESS cone
HoSs Shay" Here is our logic:
The Legislature ought to elect to the
United States Senate man who is friend
both Of General GRANT and Of the people OF
Virginia.
General WILLIAMS Is a friend both OF
General GRANT and of the people of Nir-
ginia.
Therefore, the Legislature ought to elect
General WILLIAMS.
And here is the EnQwrc,'s logic
The Dispatch says that the Legislature
ought to elect man to the United States
senate who Is friend both of General
GRANT and of the people Of Virginia.
DR.. SHARPE is a friend of General GRANT,
but not of the people of Virginia.
Therefore, the Dispatch ought to favor the
election of Dr.. SHARPE.
All which proves that the Enquirer is at
FAULT in its logic, and that the Dispatch is
not only right, but consistent.