Lynchburg Virginian

Precisely as a man holding a deed to a tract of land, which he may be charged with having fraudulently obtained. He who makes the charge of fraud cannot subject him who has the legal title,—the deed,—to convil, by judicial enquiry, the alleged fraud is proved, until that inquiry is made, and the validity of the return is proved, the member having the certificate is undeniably entitled to hold his seat.

I have heretofore illustrated it, however, by a case more in point, because identical in form as well as in principle. Capt. Coles, our representative, carried with him to Washington, doubtless, the certificate of the Sheriffs, who, in our State, are the returning officers, as the Governor is in New Jersey. Suppose that certificate fraudulently—that, in point of fact, his opponent, Capt. Witcher, had gone on to WASHINGTON, and alleged that Capt. Coles had obtained his [certificate] fraudulently—he, and not Capt. Coles, had obtained a majority of the votes of the people of the district—and suppose, too, that he had carried a certificate of the clerks of the several courts, with whom the poll-books are deposited in Virginia, as they are with the Secretary of State in New Jersey, whose certificate to that effect was given to the five Van Buren claimants from that State, declaring that the Sheriff's certificate was fraudulent; would it not have been deemed a great outrage if Capt. Coles had been denied his seat until the allegation of Mr. Witcher, backed by the certificate of the clerks, had been investigated?

Unquestionably. The allegation would have furnished grounds for enquiry—but not for exclusion. And this is precisely the New Jersey case, "in a nutshell." Strip it of verbiage and sophistry, and it amounts to precisely this, and nothing more. It is impossible that any mind, in search of truth, can doubt that a gross outrage would have been perpetrated on Capt. Coles and on the people whom he represents, had he been excluded from his seat upon a bare allegation of fraud: how much greater is that outrage, when nearly the entire delegation of a State is excluded upon such an allegation—founded it may be in truth, but more probably in falsehood; since they who knowingly perpetrated a fraud at the polls, as the party did by which they claim to be elected, could have no scruple afterwards in maintaining that fraud by perjury? The case is too clear to admit of a shadow of a doubt; and argument serves only to obscure instead of elucidating it.

does, there the organization of Congress may always be prevented by such allegations, or if it be organized, a sufficient number of members may be deprived of their seats to throw all its powers in the hands of a minority, since nothing is easier than to make such allegations. The allegation is sufficient to justify enquiry: but...

The Enquirer of this morning is quite Janus-faced. In its leading editorial it declares that Mr. Rives has abandoned the Administration, and is now a Whig. On the other hand, it inserts a letter from Caroline, written, it is generally understood, by Wm. P. Taylor, Esq. (an Elector in 1836 on the famous "double-shotted" White and Harrison ticket.) who labors hard to prove that Mr. Rives has not changed, and that therefore, the Whigs have abandoned their principles in supporting Mr. R. and can no longer receive his (Mr. Taylor's) countenance! The reason of this discrepancy between the Editor and his correspondent, (both, however, reaching the same point by their opposite processes of reasoning,) is obvious. Mr. Ritchie is compelled to assume that Mr. Rives has changed, in order to sustain its abandonment and abuse of that gentleman; while Mr. Taylor is compelled to assume that he has not changed in order to supply him with a pretext for abandoning the Whigs, and going over to the Spoils party! It is wonderful, however, that Mr. Taylor, who is too much of a Whig—too excessively squeamish—to sanction the support of Mr. Rives, can nevertheless digest, without the slightest difficulty, Van Buren, Benton, and the whole Administration party! He has the stomach of an Ostrich; and yet Mr. Rives is too offensive to be swallowed! He swears, however, that he "is not conscious of any change in himself." Oh no! certainly not! But has it never occurred to the gentleman to ask himself, how happens it, if this be so, that he, who was a Whig Elector in 1836, is now "pigging in the same truckle-bed" with Van Buren and Benton? He says, his "confidence in Van Buren is not destroyed:" when, before, did he profess to have any confidence in him? Alas for the infirmity of noble minds, which converts the impulses of an honorable ambition into a sordid calculation of profit and loss! Mr. Taylor, it is whispered, is anxious to go back to Congress; and finding the Whig ground pre-occupied by Speaker Hunter, his only hope was to turn Loco Foco—and when a man wants to turn his coat, it is astonishing what wretched subterfuges—what pitiful pretexts—are sufficient to justify his apostasy to his own mind. Mr. Taylor is one of Mr. Calhoun's "tail," of whom the Whig party will soon, I hope, get entirely clear. -It will be a most happy riddance. And this little squad may rest assured of one thing; and that is, that though they may be flattered and used by their new allies, they will never be trusted.

The Enquirer takes up the defence of Senator Dyer this morning.—That gentleman's gross violation of the will of his constituents finds favor in its eyes, because his votes for Senator and Governor were in conformity with its wishes! Had a Whig Senator or Delegate given a similar vote, under the same circumstances, the Enquirer's regard for the "sacred Right of Instruction" would have been horribly shocked. It is very evident that the Enquirer's sensitiveness upon that theme is altogether a matter of calculation, and not of principle or of patriotism. A disregard of the will of the constituent body is not in itself criminal, according to the Enquirer's ethics, but it is only so when it militates against the Enquirer's favorites—in favor of them, it is hard if the Enquirer do not find something palliating or justifying in the circumstances of the case. Look at its pitiful shift in Senator Dyer's case: Last Spring, his District, in the election of delegates to the Legislature, gave an aggregate Whig majority of 350 votes—yet the Senator has, all the winter, given Loco Foco votes. And what is the Enquirer's defence? Why, that, by counting the Delegates' votes in Pennsylvania and Henry, and the Congressional vote in Patrick, there appears to be a majority of about 60 in favor of the Administration. But why thus discrimination? The true test, last Spring, was the Senatorial election. The Enquirer itself made it so. It is evident, therefore, that as this election was to devolve upon the delegates, and not upon the members of Congress, that the delegates' poll, in all the counties,—in Patrick as well as in Pennsylvania and Henry,—should have governed Senator Dyer's course. But the Enquirer's defence is untenable on other grounds—on this particularly, that the Congressional poll in Patrick furnished no fair criterion of the strength of parties in that county, owing to the great personal popularity of Mr. Stuart, the Administration candidate, and to the local influences which operated in his favor; but more especially because, although an Administration man, he was opposed to the Sub-Treasury. Yet Mr. Dyer has voted uniformly for Sub-Treasury men. It is, in truth, one of the most flagrant instances upon record of a violation of