Alabama State Intelligencer

The next Governor.—The Huntsville Democrat of the 14th inst. speaking on this subject, says: "We have seldom known such a sudden change as has taken place in Huntsville and its vicinity, within the last month, with regard to the election of Governor. Three months ago there was something like a division between Judge Gayle and Capt. Davis—But now every body, country and town, seem to go in for Gayle—Men—yes, and influential men too—have acknowledged their error, ceased to do evil, learned to do good, and are supporting Gayle with all their might."

Had we not proof to the contrary we might be disposed to place some confidence in the assertion of the Democrat, and consequently begin to despair of the success of Mr. Davis. But satisfied as we are that he will get a large majority in the North, and quite a respectable vote in the South, we still look forward with confidence to his election. We know Mr. Davis' friends do not make so much noise and parade as their opponents; nor do they boast of such an overwhelming majority; yet they look with a single eye to the elevation of the man of their choice without wishing or trying to detract from or sully the character of his worthy competitor. We fully understand the object of the Democrat in boasting of the growing popularity of Judge Gayle in the North. It will not be denied, we presume, that it is merely for effect abroad; and it is really amusing to witness the tact and perfect understanding of a few of the newspapers devoted to the cause of the Judge. The Planter's Gazette makes a statement that he will carry every thing before him in the South; the Selma Courier responds to it, and adds its feeble testimony; the Tuscaloosa Inquirer reiterates it as a stubborn fact; the Democrat takes it up, magnifies it and sends it back. Thus they think to make an impression among the people that Judge G. will, without the possibility of a doubt, be our next Governor.—We must have positive proof of a change adverse to Mr. Davis, before we can put any confidence in the statement of the Democrat.

The Inquirer of Thursday morning vauntingly asks, Why we do not attack the principles or ability of Judge Gayle? Before we proceed to answer this interrogatory, we would ask the Inquirer to point out a single editorial article since the opening of the campaign, wherein we have attacked Judge Gayle in any shape? Have we said aught against him, either as an individual or as a politician, further than reprobating the system of electioneering so strenuously advocated by the Inquirer? And yet we are arraigned by this impotent, self-created censor, for "holding up Judge Gayle as the Magnus Apollo of a certain faction"—for perpetrating trifling and contemptible puns to give vent to spleen, engendered on account of his flattering prospects! A reference to our files will satisfy any one of the wilful misrepresentations of the Inquirer. To give the coloring of truth to its assertions, it endeavors to palm the communication of "A. B." upon the public as our editorial remarks; yet we should not blush to acknowledge such sentiments our own. This alone will sufficiently illustrate the illiberality of the Inquirer, and the utter prostitution of principle in its differences with us. Yet we are not alone—some of the best men in the State have encountered its envenomed shafts and so long as men are the governing principle of the Inquirer, we cannot hope for a change.

If the Inquirer is laboring in a good cause, and for the object of promoting and cherishing sound and wholesome principles, why resort to such degrading means to accomplish his end? Why aim at prostrating every one who may chance to differ with him, and has the independence to express his sentiments? Does he wish an Inquisition established to put to torture those who will not join with him and his party? We confess his general course savors a little of this principle. If the Inquirer is sure of the election of Judge Gayle, why not be content without trying to tarnish the reputation of Mr. Davis? Does the simple circumstance of Mr. Davis opposing Judge Gayle for the office of Governor justify the efforts of the Inquirer to blast his character? And are all his friends who dare defend him to be in like manner annihilated? This may be according to the principles of modern democracy, as advocated by the precocious editor of the Inquirer; but we apprehend the thinking part of the community will decline subscribing to his doctrines. We are certain that Judge Gayle himself cannot approve of so vindictive a course as the Inquirer pursues.

We will now notice the interrogatory of the Inquirer. As to Judge Gayle's abilities, both natural and acquired, we presume no one acquainted with him will pretend to question; and in this respect we conceive him to be well qualified to fill the gubernatorial chair. His principles too, are in many respects unexceptionable. But we object to him because he is too much of a party man. It is not to be presumed that a man going into office with such strong party predilections, could be an impartial Governor—the chief magistrate of a whole State. He would of necessity be governed in some degree by his party; he would be forced to act according to their notions of right, else they would forsake him. The friends of Judge Gayle cannot claim for him an exemption from this rule; or it is too general to bring forward a solitary instance to the contrary. We are among those who think that the Chief Magistrate of the State should go into office wholly untrammeled by party obligations.