Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1842-10-05
COMMUNICATED.

1t is asked and the answer demanded;
why Col. Frank, G. Davis, R. Fl. Dcming,
J. M. Sprague, and numerous others, are
permitted to bolt the Democratic Ticket
with IMMUNITY, when if John Bullen does
so, he is denounced and prescribed by his
party. Let him, who can, answer the in
qulry. AN OLD DEMOCRAT.
The above was handed to us few days since,
accompanied with a request that it might be pub
lished in the Telegraph. Since answer is de-
manded to the nerrogaory, we have no hesitation
in giving one on our own responsibility the other
persons alluded to- can dou btless answer for them
selves.
In the first place Gan old Democrat .bases his
interrogatory upon assumed premises, the correct
ness OF which sho uld first have been proved. Al
though no definite period is mentioned at which
Messrs Frank, Davis, Deming Sprague, &c. ARE
charged with having "bolted the Democratic
Ticket, but we were verbally informed by the wri-
ter of the communication, that allusion is had to
the election last fall, at which the name of Gen.
Bullen was extensively struck off from the Demo
cratic ticket. How many of the above named in
dividuals struck Gen. Buen's name from the tick
ct last fall, know not; that they all did, is not
true. SO much then, for the correctness Of the
.inqurer's premises.
Granting, however, for the sake of answering
the inquiry, the truth Of can old Democrats as
serton, let US examine his position. The ground
he seems disposed to take is, that the individuals
named by him guilty of political sin last
fall as great as that committed by himself at the
late election. Let US look at facts and see what
parallel there is in the two cases. Grant that Ell
Their of the men mentioned by cold democrat"
struck Gen. Bullen's name from the ticket last fall
and yet gave their cordial support to the remainder
Of the democratic nominees on the ticket. Then,
the other hand, grant that Gen. Bullen at the
late election, rejected the entire democratic nom;n-
atoms, both for the Council and the House, and
gave his whole influence and support to the Wing
candida for both branches of the Legislature
The man who difference in these two cases
of political action, must be afflicted with most ex-
traordinary mental blindness. To assert that an
elector who simply grasses single name from his
ticket, and yet gives his support to the remainder
of Vie ticket, deserves as much the appelation of
'pOter as the man VINO not only Te3ectS the llckel
nominated by his party, but gives his influence and
vote to the opposite party, the height of absurdi
| ty 1t is true that party usages generally require
that the members of the party, should abide the de-
cisons Of their conventions, but certainly the best
of men, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, have
deviated from this rtle.
1t should always be kept in view that the legiti
mate aim of the democratic party is, the establish
ment of principles and measures-not the mere ee
walton of men. To secure this object, candidates
are put in nomination, and the oftheir cleo
ton is regarded by the party the success of prn
cples. This is the true ground upon which all party
contests should be conducted. Then what greater
Inconsistency can elector be guilty of, than to
abandon the party and the principles to which he
processes to be attached, and give his support to a
party possessing principles of an opposite character
If this be political honesty, then is the man honest
who betravs the liberties of his country which he
PROCESSES to love- into the hands of the enemy. If
this be not political treason, there is such thing
! as political treason in the transactions of men.
Such are our individual views in relation to mat
| tiers embraced in the communication of IAN OLD
/ DEMOCRAT" IF there are those who differ with us
we can assure them that disposed to give
! them respectful hearing-our columns not
| closed against the opinions of others, who are hon.
| estly disposed to submit them on this subject