Democratic banner., 1846-05-30
ST. CHARLES PATRIOT.

The editor of this paper seems 10 have
taken an article which appeared in a late
number of the Banner much to heart. We
are So-ry to have wounded his tender sensi-
bilities; bit let us say TO him that in his eff
fortto correct what no very courteously
terms Our unin.entional misrepresentation,
he should not have fallen into such gross
errors himself. Fer the Patriot errs when
he says that we impugncd tie motives and
assaiied TIE character Of the delegates
who assembled at St. Charles on the 4th
inst. We expressly disclaimed all inten-
ton Of making any charge against them
Our remarks were intended for ga few and
a very few about St. Charlcs.'' to wit: the
editors Of tic Patriot, and their immediate
counscllors. Then why does the Patriot,
with our article before lis eyes, miSrcpre-
sent Us, but for Tic purpose Of creating Il
prejudice against us in the minds of others?
If the Patriot Supposes that We arc NOR
tilted or disappointed because the Conrcn-
tion is not TO be held at Warrcnton, he is
greatly mistaken. We did not expect TO
gain any thing in the event of the Conven-
tons being held at that place; nor Go we
expect to lose any thing because it is TO be
held at St. Charles. Thch we were not
disappointed. We only expressed in plain
language our disapproval of what we con-
sidered an obstinate determination to force
US to meet at the latter place.
The evidences of public opinion so far
as we had seen them, were decidedly in IA
vor of Wa-renton. The proceedings of
the meeting in Washington had not then
reached us; nor had we seen an expression
of any public meeting i'll Audrain in favor
OF St. Charles. Believing that public opin-
ion was in favor of Warrenton, we advoca-
ted the meeting CT the Convention at that
place, ard protested against what we consid-
cred all undue effort to force us to meet at
St. Charles.
We stated that a prominent Democrat Of
St. Charles, said to us that they would nev-
er consent that the Convention should he
held - Narrenton. The editor of the Pa
triot exclaimed he "DID'xr," he "DrD'xT."
Nov Tie editor must certainly think himself
the only prominent democrat in St. Charles.
or we must have trod upon his toes. one of
the two. We did not name the Patriot
man. Then if the shoe did not pinch him.
why did he vince so? :
The lns.nuation of the Patriot about tbe
preference Of the Banner for Conoress ;s
altogether gratuitous. JTe can not MONT ,o
a solitary editorial in the Banner showing
a preference for any one of the democratic
aspiraats. As an editor. we have made M
expression Of opinion on that subiect-as
an INDIVIDUAL, we HAVE expressed a pre-
feFence: and we still entertain that preGcr-
encc as our iirst choice, the IHSinuaii1n OF
the Patr:0tt to the contrary Notwithstanding
But the editor Of the Patriot is very nice
at special pleading when he denies that lie
published a call for the Convention 10 meet
In st. Charles on the Ist of June, because,
that call was signed by a committee of 3.
DID nc NJ! see that in the very paper in
which we spoke of the call, VIC published
the card Itself signed by the committee of
D. The lnsianaticn that We suppressed the
proceedings Of the meeting on the 4th of
May, is ungencrous. They were of no i'm
Fortanee to our readers if they had reached
us n time for publication in that number of
the Banner. But they did not reach lis till.
after orr article was written on information
derived from a private source, and Just as
our paper was going to press, we had only
room fer the card which we published.
Though the Patriot will not impugn mo-
tIves, there are many other ugly i~nsinua-
tons in his article, which we have neither
room nor time to notice. Our past conduct
k~sfI' The e1itcr Of the Pa..iot has not