Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1842-10-12

was ne not aware dt the Time ne IeCelFeu du APP
pointment upon this committee, what would be ex-
pected of himl most certainly he was; and if so,
by accepting of the appointment, did he not viz
tualIy pledge himself to sustain the action of the
Convention, and support the nomlnatlonsl The
affirmative OF this proposition is almost selfevdent.
We'll, did ne support these nominatons7 He ad-
mits himself that he did not. Was not this vio-
lation of his pledge? 1t vas. Could he, then, after
this neglect or refusal to perform the service
which he knew required of him at the time of
his appointment, properly be considered an agent
OF the party member of its corresponding COM
mlttee? To make this matter palmer; suppose an
agent Is appointed to perform specific service viz:
to promote IN some particular way the interests of
his principal. BY taking the appointment, the a.
gent OF course agrees to perform the service; but
suppose instead of performing this service, he takes
an opposite course-instead Of promoting the inter
est Of his Principal, he exerts himself to destroy
that Internationally seriously violating his trust,
can he, In that course be considered the agent b.
ma fde, OF the person who appointed hm9 And
although the agent, previously his appointment,
may have dissented in some particular to what was
required OF him, yet, after accepting the agency,
could the force Of his obligation to sustain fully the
interests Of the principal be considered in the least
! degree weakened by this circumstance? No man
In his senses will reply in the affirmative to these
interrogatores This is precisely the situation of
Mr.. Bennett rs agent, with reference to the demo-
cratic party of the county, as principal.
] ask, then, wherein | was wrong in declaring
that he had violated the trust reposed in him. and
consequently could not be considered member of
the corresponding committee? | ask, farther was
! | not right in charging him and Mr.. Hale with
frauds upon the public, by subscribing themselves
in handful the object of which was to defeat the
! democratic party, members of the corresponding
committee Of that party; and, admitting them to
have been members of the committee, by calling
themselves, when mimOrity the "County Cores
ponding Committee ? | ask lastly whether as
honorable men, they were not bound, if they could
not conscentiously sustain the action of the Con-
venon, to decline serving upon its committee; and
whether by not doing so, and by using the cloak of
the party injure its interests, they not obnox-
ious 10 the charge Of mcanncss and heachery which
| I made against them?
But Mr. Bennett contends that because in the
nominations, upon motion for a reconsideration of
one of them, therefore it could not be considered,
by accepting of an appointment upon the commit
tee, which was subsequently made that he had viz
tualy pledged himself to support the nominations
"If made any pledge (says he) it was to be con-
sistent, and carry out the views had but few
moments before expressed"
Having before alluded to the question whether
! this dissent weakened the force of his obligation as
member Of the committee TO support the ticket
! and passing over here the ridculously absurd i'm
! pcalion that the Convention knowingly appointed
any upon its committee who was expected, in
his official capacity, to oppose its nominations,
shall make this simple inquiry, whether the men,
bers of that body had right to presume, although
Mr.. b. In debate may have expressed his dissent to
certain nomination, that, after the question for a
reconsideration fairly disposed of, he as a de-
mocrat, would not be inclined to submit to the de-
cison of the majorty2 Every member of the Con-
vention had his personal predictions and objec-
TONS so far as candidates were concerned, and was
expected fully and canddly to express his assent or
dissent to any nominee proposed; but it ex-
peced, after ticket was conclusivey settled upon,
that any delegate would be so far regardless of his
duty and the interests of his party, as persist in
his dissent, and to oppose the whole ticket merely
because one or two nominations not made in
| accordance with his personal views and feelings?
better opinion than this then entertained of
Mr.. Bennett. 1t was believed he would support
the ticket, or most assuredy he would not have
been placed on the committee. THIS HE KNOWS!
IL IA H.,
genuous the man who resorts to it! and how weak
the cause that renders pitiful necessary!
Mr. BIS remark that he happened to stand in the
! way of my @ ambitious views" and, therefore, |
ad but to will it, and his "name must be stricken
from the list, not only of the committee, but as a
member of the democratic party" | do not fully
comprehend The whole extent of my ambition
was to secure the success of the ticket. 1t is very
true he 'stood In the way" of the accomplishment
! of this object, and doubtless contributed much to
the defeat of that ticket. If this be what he means.
his remark is correct, with this exception, that |
cannot plead guilty to the charge of driving him
from the party. His desertion of the party was an
&C: of his own; and not being Mr.. BIS keeper or
| adviser, am at loss to conceive how can be held
| responsible for this sin.
! How striking here is Mr. b consistency! In
! one breath he denounces my q ambitious views"
| in sustaining the democratic nominations, and in
the next, when it is plain he was opposed TO these
nominations, he declares it to be "most infamous
charge" q base SANDER" that he had deserted
the democratic party and gone to the whig
II opposition to the regular nominations of the
democratic party, and support of the whig, do not
constitute a desertion from the former to the latter
will Mr.. Bennett be so good to inform the pub
! lie what doesl
But, says Mr.. B., 90 voted no part of the whg
ticket at the late election, neither sought to Sc
cure the election of any wing. Here shall be
! compelled to convict him of something worse than