Richmond Enquirer

We have no hesitation in assuring our "Friend" in Culpeper, that we have never said nor insinuated, that all the friends of Barbour in the Caucus were "Calhoun men in disguise." Our article, to which he refers, under the head of "Party Tactics," certainly justifies no such conclusion.—We did not need his assurance to satisfy us, "that partiality for Calhoun formed no part of the reasons which induced (him) to go for the nomination of Barbour." We were well aware, and we have frequently said it, that many in the Caucus, and out of it, were the friends of Mr. Barbour's nomination, not because they were the friends of Calhoun, but because of their high respect and great confidence for P. P. Barbour's qualifications, principles and services. Some also supported him in part, because of their decided opposition to Mr. Van Buren—and some, who were the friends of Mr. Calhoun, took refuge under his name.

We seize this opportunity also to notice an insinuation from another quarter. It has been said, that the Enquirer has denounced P. P. Barbour. How—when—where? We deny the insinuation altogether. The Enquirer has treated that distinguished gentleman with all courtesy and respect. We appeal to every line that we have ever penned, for confirmation of the fact. We have said, that neither Mr. Barbour nor any other candidate, could be elected by the People, who was not the nominee of the Baltimore Convention. Is there any denunciation in that? If our Correspondents have written one or two articles of a different description, is that our fault? Have not other Correspondents published articles of unsparing severity against another candidate—Martin V. Buren?

A paragraph in another paper has some time since charged upon Mr. P. V. Daniel the authorship of a piece, which bore against Mr. Barbour. This, too, is a mistake. Mr. D. has never published a line in this paper against Mr. Barbour.