Richmond Enquirer

FOR THE ENQUIRER.

THE PINK OF CONSISTENCY!

"Judge White is a fair compromising ground, which we trust and believe, will re-unite many old Republicans whom the disputes about men have divided for years past."—[Whig of Friday last.]

"Martin Van Buren—a supporter of Internal Improvements, and that compound of all that is detestable in doctrine and dangerous in practice, a modern Proclamation, Force Bill, and Protest Federalist," &c.—Whig of same date—same article.

I hope you will remember these proofs of consistency, from a man who is eternally harping upon the virtues of it. Where are the distinguishing lines between Mr. Van Buren and Mr. White, in these "compounds of all that is detestable," &c., &c? The Whig knows it to be a fact, that Judge White approved the Proclamation, Force Bill, and the Protest. It only suspects Mr. Van Buren to have done the same. Now, does it suit its political ethics, to trust to one, as a fair compromising ground, who is known to favor these "detestable" measures—and yet, to denounce another, who is only suspected of doing so?-

The same Whig denounces Mr. Van Buren as "a supporter of Internal Improvements"—when it ought to have known, that in the note which Mr. Van Buren subjoined to his speech in 1828, detailing the encroachments of the Federal Government, he regrets the only vote he ever gave in favor of Internal Improvement—and that was on the Cumberland Road Bill—and he says of this question, that if it "were again presented to him, he would vote against it; and that his regret for having done otherwise would be the greater, had not Mr. Monroe, much to his credit, put his veto upon the bill; and were it not the only vote in the course of a seven years' service, which the most fastidious critic can torture into an inconsistency with the principles which Mr. Van Buren professed to maintain, and in the justice of which he is every day more and more confirmed."—The Whig should have recollected, too, that during the last year Judge White himself tripped on the subject of Internal Improvement!—The Whig is also pleased to call Mr. Van Buren "an original Federalist." The assertion is altogether gratuitous and false. So far from being called a Federalist, he has been at every period of his life, the most determined enemy of that party.

Such glaring inconsistencies as the above should not go unnoticed, and I hope you will hold them up to the gaze of the public.

A FRIEND.

Were we to undertake the task of holding up all the inconsistencies of the Whig, we should scarcely have any thing else to do. One paper contradicts another—and as "A Friend" shows, the same article contradicts itself. The Editor has called himself a State Rights man, when he has supported a National Bank, a National Tariff, a National Distribution of the surplus fund for Internal Improvements—when he has been an advocate of Adams and Clay for the Presidency, with all their high-toned Federal Notions—now against Leigh, as being a century behind the age, and then for Leigh, as President—then dropping Leigh, and taking up White—ready to drop White and go back to Clay—now against Calhoun, then for him—now denouncing Tazewell, and then admiring him—now an Anti-Nullifier, then a Nullifier, &c., &c., &c.