The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-05-19

4 But there is one little weak point in the
Dispatch's statement Of it's position which
needs explanation and defence. While IT. IS
true that =" little or nothing" has appeared
in its editorial columns "aganst any OF the
candidates for Governor" the fact is never
theless observed by every reader that tue
DISPATCH has been careful to gather up and
publish in its daily issues everything in OPP
position to and %disparagement Of General
Malone, 1ehite 1t has Recer published any
thing in his Vindicdtion or defence !-Pe-
iers6urg Post. 49,, ...
Itis.none Of our business to defend the
candidate OF our opponents. II we were
to publish any article uniustly rejecting
upon anu candidate, it would be only fair
for Us to publish the correction; and we
should most certainly do so. But we are
under no obligations to publish mere argu-
ments intended to explain away ugly facts
or to- show that We are in the wrong our
selves. No journal In Virginia ever fol
lowed any such course, or ever was expected
to follow it. Let US, illustrate: :, II we were
to publish an article stating that General
MALONE had wropgfully withheld the pay
OF his employees, or that he had done any
other specific act. unworthy Of candidate
for Governor, which actshe had. not2done
then it would be incumbent upon Us to pub
Iish the fact as soon as we learned it to oul
satisfaction. But If I'VE were to publish
nm article charging him with having in
iured the business OF Richmond BY re-
-fusing to allow the Admas Express Com.
pany to run over his road, it could not be
expected. Of us that we should publish q
reply, arguing the point in his behalf and
irving to show, that we were mistaken-not
as to the fact Of his refusal, but as to the
effect Of that, refusal. So il we were, TO
publish an article stating that Buckingham
county would certainly cast its vote in che
State Convention against MALONE, and
should learn that this statement was un-
true, it would be our duty to state the
fact. But il we were TO publish an article
charging that General MALONE wasin the
opinion of the writer ambitious OF too
many honors, aextrayagant in his notions,
wasteful, and altogether an unsuitable per-
son to be Governor, it could not reasonably
be expected Of us that we should publish q
reply to such article. 100
Now, then, we say that we have not con.
sciously departed from this rule; and We
challenge the Posttoshow that we. have.
Nor do we intend to dose. We shall Iol.
low it to the end Of the preliminary canvass.
Nothing but judicial blindness caused by
the Posts devotion to its Ifavorite candi-
.date--could have induced that journal to
censure us for not doing what it has never
done itself. Even now it publishes col
nmn after column in favor Of MAHoNE, Blu.
never an editorial in favor OF ANY. me else.
Finally, the Post smistaken as to its facts.
We have not been careful to |" gather up and
publish in our daily issues everything in OPP
position TO and Encouragement of General
MALONE Js have not repro uced one 1.-THE
Of the anti y kHosE articles that have come
under our eyes from correspondents and
from papers. We publish what II suits us
to publish, and reje what we do BOT think
it proper TO print. And we expect to con.
tinue in this course until the meeting OF the
August Convention. - (.