Richmond Enquirer

RICHMOND, FRIDAY, APRIL 2.

THE PROTEST—No.

We have been unfortunate enough to gall the writer of the author of the Protest (in the House of Delegates;) but we now make him the only amende honorable in our power, by laying his strictures before the public. We will not quarrel with Mr. W. Robertson about styles. There is no disputing, they say, about tastes; though we might fairly plead before any paper, which is certainly more curious than felicitous in its composition.—With a few brief notes, appended to the following communication, we dismiss the subject:

make on the style, and the force of the "Protest" of

"Sir—The comments you have thought proper t

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER.

myself and others, against the late Inspection Law, (as

you term it,) I am quite willing should pass for what

they are worth. As to what may be thought of that

ous; but most critics, I am of opinion, will not think

paper, in point of composition, I am not very solicit.

any the worse of it, in that respect, that its style is not

very studiously copied after that of the Enquirer.

"however matured by age, or modelled by experience.

it ought to have occurred to you, that there are obvious

As regards the force of the arguments advanced in it,

reasons why the objections to the law in question should

not be too strongly stated, as well as why yet stronger

objections than any urged against it were not even

hinted at. (!) These points, however, would not, of

themselves, have challenged notice from me: neither

would the manifest inconsistency you involve yourself

in, when, after stating, that those who signed the pro-

test, desired that the General Government should be

appealed to, and New York again appealed to, you, in

the same breath, impute to them the disposition to "do

nothing:""(①) Nor yet the strange, heterodox propo-

sition, affirmed by you, that "the law of Congress,

about the surrender of fugitives, [has] been nullified

by an act of New York," involving the broad admission

that a State may nullify an act of Congress made

strictly in pursuance of the Constitution—Thus out-

nullifying even nullification itself. (②) Inviting as

these themes are, and fruitful of comment, I yet for-

bear: content merely to have pointed public attention

to them.

"But when you go on to say "of the Protest," "it is a

document which (to use its own confused language)

leaves us sufficient reason to doubt if it were not ta.

ken under the influence of considerations not calcu-

lated to command for it the full weight of a deliberate

and unbiassed judgment on the question submitted to

(their) decision," you convey an insinuation against

those who signed that paper which it is proper should

be repelled; and repelled, in justice, through the same

channel that gave it publicity. [By-the-bye, the Pro.

test speaks of "the course" of Governor Seward as

having been "taken under influences," &c. "A docu.

ment taken under influences," &c., is one of those in-

stances of curiosa felicitas" so peculiarly your own,

and which, while I could not hope, I certainly should

never aspire, to rival ] In applying to Governor Se-

ward the language you have quoted from the Protest,

I certainly did intend to intimate a belief that he had

allowed considerations to enter into his course towards

Virginia at once improper and reprehensible. In adopt-

ing and applying that language to those who signed

that paper, you doubtless design to cast similar impu-

tations, and it would seem, to surmise vaguely that it

was concocted by joint counsels to subserve some co-

vert, if not sinister purpose. (③) Lest such impressions

should be made, it is due to the gentlemen who united

with me in that Protest, to say, that it was prepared

entirely by myself—and was not, either as to form or

substance, the subject of conference with them, except

that almost at the moment of submitting it, it was

shown to a few friends who sat near me in the House,

and who alone signed it before it was presented. It

was signed by the others, by leave of the House,

through the day, as opportunity offered to examine it.

The public may judge, then, how far these gentlemen

were implicated in a plot, or were likely to be influ-

enced by any other considerations than a concurrence

in the views presented by it on a question of great pub.

lic interest. For myself, about to withdraw from pub-

lic life, I might have hoped to have been spared this

jling at the "considerations" which influenced me, did

I not know that, in the pursuit of party objects, neither

the motives nor the feelings of those who stand at all

in the way of the attainment of them, are likely to be

much regarded. But I may be permitted, in closing

my humble career, against the imputation of having

been influenced by improper considerations, to place

my solemn asseveration, that the act in question was

dictated by no motive, of which I am conscious, what-

sever, except a sense of public duty, and an earnest de.

sire to the extent of my ability, to aid in warding off

the evils which, in my opinion, an unwise and ill-con-

sidered measure was calculated to draw down upon this

State and this Country.

WYNDHAM ROBERTSON."

(1.) It might "have occurred" to Mr. R. and others,

that there were obvious reasons why no objections

should have been pompously paraded in the form of a

Protest at all. The bill had been opposed on the floor

of the House—argued against—voted against—and

some of those speeches had gone forth to the world.

We had supposed, that its enemies might have been

content with this species of opposition; without taking

any other step after the passage of the law, to weaken

its moral effect upon the State of New York. It seems

to us, that after such a law had been passed by a de-

cided majority of both Houses: gentlemen, too, of both

parties concurring in its adoption, under the influence of

the strongest convictions; the minority might then have

acquiesced in the decision. But no! The course of the

opposition since is only calculated to weaken the force of

this appeal upon the Governor and people of New York.

They have publicly protested against it. They have

manifested their desire to expunge it from the statute

book—and the Richmond Whig has avowed its belief

that the Protest will contribute to produce next winter,

the repeal of the law. This is a pretty broad "hint" to

the people of New York

(2.) We prefer speaking for ourselves.

What we said

in that article was this

"They would appeal to New York without doing any thing

ourselves, or redeeming one pledge which the Legislature of '39

peal to Congress for assistance, in relation to fugitive felons, as in

"40 solemnly gave in the name of the State. They would also ap.

the law of Congress about the surrender of fugitive slaves had not

been nullified by an act of New York."

Now, whether this going, cap in hand, to the present

Governor, or the present Legislature, and suing for jus-

tice, or whether this appeal to Congress, be "doing no-

thing at this time" for ourselves, or worse than nothing

is respectfully submitted to the people.

(3.) We would treat the author of the Protest with all

respect. We will not say, that he has been guilty of mis-

representation—but he has fallen into some unaccount-

able mistake about our meaning. We have quoted our

own words above. When we say, that "the law of

Congress about the surrender of fugitive slaves has

been nullified by an act of New York,"' (and therefore

we argue that they might in the same manner defeat

an act about "fugitive felons," ) how was it possible for

Mr. R. to suppose, that we admitted the right of a State

to nullify a constitutional act of Congress:

He con-

founds the fact with the right. He will scarcely deny,

that N. York has defeated by her act of May, 1840, the

act of Congress about fugitive slaves. We do not say

it was right. On the contrary, we have always con-

tended that it was wrong—a wrong against the law of

Congress as well as the Constitution. As N. York had

been mad enough to do that, we contended that she

would in like manner pass a law to counteract and nul-

lify any law, which Congress might pass in relation to

the surrender of fugitive felons. Did we therefore jus-

tify the law of N. York? Did we thus attempt to "out-

nullify nullification itself?" Mr. R. may hug himself

in the discovery he has made of a new meaning in our

words: and he had better take out a new patent for his

act of construction—but we suspect no other person

will profit by his patent.

(4.) It is "due" to ourselves to remove the impres-

sion which Mr. R. has taken up. We meant to con-

vey no such imputation in regard to him, as he says he

meant to convey towards the Governor of New York.

What he meant to convey—what "improper and repre-

hensible considerations" he intended to attribute to the

Governor of New York, is one thing—What we meant

to convey to the Protestors, is another thing. What

"reprehensible" considerations they meant to ascribe to

him, we know not. They are not set forth in the re-

cord. We meant nothing more than that this Docu-

ment had not been fully and deliberately weighed, and

that the judgment of its authors might have been bias-

sed by certain extrinsic considerations, connected with

the source from which the bill proceeded, or from the

party that principally supported it, &c., &c. It does

appear to us, somewhat strange, that Mr. R. should

make his "fling" at others, whilst he claims a perfect

exemption from all extrinsic motives for himself. Other

persons, he says, pursue party objects—Other persons

do not much regard either the motives or the feelings

of those who stand in the way of their party objects——

whilst Mr. R. would resent any such fling at himself

or his friends.—But we have no disposition to re-

tort. We would rather smooth the way to his retire-

ment, than now irritate the wound. We meant nothing

more than to say, as he has said, that this Protest was

an "unwise, ill-considered measure." It might have

been biassed even by considerations of which he was

not "conscious."—We are as willing as most men to

admit him his public spirit, and to allow that he has

been actuated by "a sense of public duty." Mr. R.

is a Whig, and we differ with him in politics: but we

have no disposition to do him injustice. In a word, we

might appeal to the public, whether in the course of the

late session, we have shewn any unfriendly or disre-

spectful feelings towards "Wyndham Robertson.