The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-11-12

| lDt pttlC OOuFH Ut ooi Nv
sition. We always opposed the law chang
ing the time of the meeting of the General
Assembly. We have said from the first
! what we said yesterday, that there was no
such thing as postponing the meeting OF
the General Assembly until January. The
Journal must learn to be more accurate in
its statements. We now offer it the use OF
our files, and aver that it cannot find one
single sentence therein either asserting that
the Legislature had the power to postpone
the meeting of the Legislature or justifying
that body for undertaking SO to do. And
the Journal has no excuse for thus miSrepre-
senting us. 1t knew better. 1t knew that
we had never taken other ground than that
which we to-day occupy. On the 10Th Of
last month that paper said
"Thc Dispatch does not back down ON its
assertions of last March, 'that there is no
such thing as postponing the meeting of the
next General Assembly until January, 1874;
it only maintains that the Legislature had the
right to elect the county court judges last
spring. But to do this they had to post
pone the meeting of the next General Assem-
Div from the first Wednesday in December
until the first day of January, 1ST4-a thing
that that journal declared was impossible to
be done, as certain constitutional require
ments stood in the way of it. Which is the
paramount obligation, To comply With tne
Constitution or legislative resolution Which,
as the Dispatch declared, could not De
passed? On this pivotal inquiry hinges Tue
whole question of compliance or non'com.
pliance with the resolution in question: but
VIC shall pursue this subject further on Moh-
lay. State Journal. "
The above was Misrepresentation III
another respect of our position, but it truly
STATES that "the Dispatch does not pach
:. down on its assertions of last March, that
d" there is no such thing as postponinS the
meeting of the General Assembly until Jan
| prv. 1874" So the Journal knew we had
| always taken the same position. On the
both of last month we called its attention to
so much of the above extract as was untrue,
in the following paragraph:
"No. They were not obliged to postpone
the meeting of the Legislature. The cleo
ton of the judges was d valid act per Sc. II
did not depend for its vitality or validity
) upon the postponement of the meeting Of
the Legislature until January. Please dc
not forget this when you return to the sub
ject on Monday. Do not misstate our posi-
ton. If it is impregnable-if you cannot
get out ofyour revolutionary difficulty fairly
| and without misrepresentatng us-Why
confess your error, and promise not to try
to have q set of Radical county judges elected
next winter" .....t... ......t.. S.. 3.
Holding the opinion that we have al
along held, and which we have SO Otter
ayowed, that the Legislature must meet II
December, it is evident that we could neve
have denounced the mere proposal to hay
a meeting of the Legislature in December a
revolutionary, We denounced as revo
lutionary the proposal to meet for tn
purposes avowed-that is, to treat the las
election of county judges as demonstrations
and the law authorizing it as mere " Wis.,
Of straw" Here are two of the utterance
Of the Journal that we denounced as revo
lutionary:
owe can assure them [tbe Conservatives
beforehand that if the Republican party
carries this State In the November election
the General Assembly will convene on the
first Wednesday in December, and compel
the attendance of those who purpoSely re.
main away, in spite of all these wisps oI
straw by which one legislative body seeks
TO lie down another."- Slate Journal, March
1873. "Et' .''."s.'
ave do not assume to speak for the ncxl