Constitutional Whig

To The Editors of the Richmond Whig.

Gentlemen: As a plain man in the country, I saw and was satisfied with the statement that the difference of opinion between Col. Gooch and Mr. Ritchie, was the cause which prevented the Editors of that paper from expressing an opinion on the Convention question. Since it has been known to the public that Col. Gooch has retired from the editorial desk, the public have looked with some expectation to that paper for some profound views in favor of a Convention. In this they have been disappointed: and at this time, we are unable to see to what side the Enquirer will direct its influence. Is it to be tolerated, that a paper claiming to control public opinion more than any other, should have no opinion of its own—or what is worse, that if the editors of that paper should have an opinion, they have not the firmness to express it?

In times like the present, when the fundamental laws of our State are passing in review before the people, those who have received a large portion of the public patronage, have been generally considered bound to express their opinions, and the reasons which influenced them. Nor can it be believed, that an Editor, in such times, could be influenced in concealing his opinion, by any other motive than self interest. I am unwilling to attribute such a motive to Mr. Ritchie; but, unless he believes that the ghost of Col. Gooch still haunts his steps, no other motive can be assigned.

Would it not be well for the Editors of the Enquirer to remember that they are in danger of being branded with the epithets of hypocrites?—a disgrace more to be dreaded by those who are before the public, than any other; for in public estimation, it has been correctly stated, "that of all the cants that are canted in this canting world, the cant of hypocrisy is the most odious."

RUSTICUS.