Sunbury American and Shamokin journal. [volume] (Sunbury, Northumberland Co., Pa.) 1840-1848, 1845-10-04
To The Democratic Electors,
OF the Senatorial District composed Of the
Counties of Dauphin and Northumberland.

OF the Senatorial District composed Of the
Counties of Dauphin and Northumberland
We have just read, in the Harrisburg Argus,
the second statement of the Dsuphn co. confe.
rees, and are astonished that gentlemen should So
permit their feelings to cloud their memory, and
impair their recollection of what did take place
at the meetings of the conferees
They assert "that A. Jordan, Esq was never
proposed 10 US" Now, although at is unplca.
SAINT TO us 10 contradict a statemen: SO formally !
made" we re-asscrt, in the most positive and un.
equivocal terms, that at onr first meeting at |
Georgetown we did propose to nominate A. Jor
dan, Esq and urged as reason for it, that he
could be elected without any doubt. They do !
not deny that we proposed F.. Y. Bright, Esq.
We again aver, that went into the conference
in a spirit of conciliation, and with disposition
to yield our personal preferences. We more than
"nte proposed TO drop both Mr. Dewart and Mr.
Foster and nominate a candidate living in Dau.
phin. and we appeal to Capt McAlister TO say,
whether he did not reply "that either one the
other must be nominated and whether his co.
confrrees dissen,ed from his reply
!
mcnt during or Immediately after the conference,
| in the borough of Harrisburg, in the presence of
! one more of the conierces and other citizens
and there no denial then. They say that
/ proposed TO nominate man that had been repu.
dated by Dauphn county. and no other" Now,
we never named any man, hut asked the Dauphin
county conferccs to do so aud ask them, in
, Al
did name any one except in ballot'ing. and afford
us an opportunity to consult about him They
never did
They attempt to quihblc about the ha'otings,
AMI thus rrove that we were rot willing to nomi-
nate man living in Dauphn county. Some
times the names of the Daarhin county coufcrees
were called first, sometimes those from North.
umher land county, and at other times the names
werc called alternately On the Goth ballot
Mr.. kiine's name was called first, and he voted
for Hon Iohn c. Euohrr--Mr Cake next and he
voted for Mr.. Buchc! thni i he ohr hro
oonf zee, from Dauphm county hat ro'ed T =
Hon John G Bueher ne would have been nomi.
mated; and the conferees from Danphir are ms
iaken-we nse the mi,dest term,-when they
assert !'ihdt there NO TIME at the three meet
ings of the confcrees, when the pauphin county
conterecs could have nominated a resp'eiobt
Democrat from Dauphin." They dare not deny
that the votes took place as here represented, and
that Messrs. McA!iistcr and Stah voted after
Messrs Kline aud Cake had voted for Judge
Ruoher, and they therefore cOuid have nominated
a resptc'abi- Democrat from Dauphin; for the
confcrecs certainly do not mean 10 insInuate, tina,
Judge Bucher is not a respectable Democrat. Mr.
Higgins also voted for Judge Pucher, So that these
. two contcrees from Northumberland voted fol
Judge Buchcr, and the Dauphn conferces whc
had the opportunity, refused 10 nominate him.
Again they saw, "it is fact that the North
e, cumberland conferecs always voted for w. ].
. Dewart whom they voted before the Dauphi,
county conFcrccs, and only voted fot other per
= sons after the Danphin conferecs had voted
N,r, his is On fret, as we have ALREADY shown
u, and in further proof of orr assestion, we adlnc
~, the evidence tia, on the % and Q ith ballots tw
of us. at least, voted far rcsperi0bie D'mocref
from Dauphin before the Daurhin coufrrees la
voted How the conferccs. in the face Of the re
corded roceedings, could have fallen into sue
egIesious errors we cannot imagine but we ar
cirarIably bound 10 suppose that they did not IN
!. teniionGNY msrcprcscnt the facts.
II is very unpleasant 10 have personal alter
;, cation with the Dauphn county conferees, bn
:, iusrice TO ourselves requires that the rhoe fW
N should be fairly stated; ard when it is, we be
;. lieve tha, large majority OF the democrats G
~ both counties " i'll sustain our cause. Our cor
l. duct throughout, proves very clearly that we "di
II, not represent an individual" nor were we il
u, fuenced by a factious minority in either county
4 JOHN p. rURSEL,
ISAAC NJ CAKE,
CHAS. ". HIGGINS.
Suabury, Oct. Cd, 1915.
n O. j. F. iIrNT, who was tried al Williams
5; port for the murder OF Stewart, found guilt
ne of murder in the second degree, and sentenced
|,ko ID f,a 1., 81,