Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-12-24

The Hder-Appcai quotes from our leader
Of December I, 1882, to show that our pol
icy Of "acquio scence " at that date was not
the same sort Of acquiescence recon-.
mended by the Lynch5urg Convention Of
1883. We have become accustomed to
having our old flies "drawn " on us; and
We claim that they furnish "mighty good
reading" We could almost establish a
claim to be prophet by quoting what we
said in 1882 and before on the subject OF
the public debt. The whole Democratic
patty Of Virginia was guilty Of exactly the
same sort OF inconsistency as that with
which we are charged, and surely the ar
rows which have first to pass through all
The other Democrats in Virginia cannot
penetrate our armOr.
The inter Appeat says:
"If we understand our contemporary
position i'm 1882 correctly, and we think we
90, il was opposed 10 the Rddlcberger bill
as a measure Of reputation, and was in
favor OF taking the debt question out Of
politics as IN issue between parties, and re-
ferrlng il to the courts where, according
to Ms view, the matter would have to be set
tied finally"
That was our position six months before
the Lyncbburg Convention assembled; and
that is exactly the position which was taken
by the Lynchburg Convention. We quote
the debt plank Of that Conyention-as fol-
lows:
"The Democratic party accepts as final
the recent settlement OF the public debt
pronounced constitutional by the courts OF
last resort. state and Federal, and Will Op
pose all agitation OF the question, or any
disturbance Of that settlement by appeal or
Otherwise
In other words, the Democratic party
gave in July, 1883, exactly the same rea-
sons which we had given in December
1852. for acquiescing in the RIDDLEBERGER
bill Wcquote our words:
"Tbcre cannot be future contest over
the Stale debt unless there be two parties
in Virginia divided upon that question.
What event can happen that will demand a
division Of the people into two parties
upOn this question: The Democrats have
washed their hands Of II once for all.
Now read again the charge made by the
irder. Appcal against the press OF the
state, and see how unjust 1t is; and this. 1t
must be remembered, was the only point
we made. That paper said:
d" Aglin, the Democratic policy OF 'ac-
quio,cence' and subsequent active rcpuli-
,tIon. was adopted ny the leaders in eau
81 q. no II
tbc press, hut in opposition to that BODY
and regardless OF what that element
thought. II * true the press, with but
Jew exceptions, made haste to change
front
our proposition was 10 acquicscc In the
decisions Of the courts. That was The
proposition OF the Lynchburg Convention.
Was that change Of front on our part
But really we care not Il straw for a
charge Nhich corvic,s us only Of the same
sort % Inconsistency which Characterized
the speeches and acts Of all the Democrats in
Virginia. We do object, however, to the
charge that we changed front" in obc-
di,nce 10 the behests Of the Lynchhurg
Convention.
The hdcr-AppCGi quotes also irsm the
D;spo'ct Of December, 1852, the following
Now the supreme Court Of the United
states l. expected to decide that that settle.
mcnt cannot stand, and the same bind
guides are already beginning to cry out that
the debt question must again be discussed
| before the voter. Why. pray; The
| courts will decide ii finally
Surely that was notice to all that we never
intended to make another fight against the
! RDDLrEERGER bin. The Lynchburg Con
| yenlion six months afterwards declared foI
the Democratic party that it never intended
TO make another fight against the RIDDLE
BERGER bill.
We confidently expect our Petersburg
| contemporary to own that We did no
schange front " In obedience to the order
Of the Lynchburg Convention.