Democratic banner., 1847-12-06

"WLat other kind of evidence would the
Banner ask us to produce to ,shew that
Democrats favored the MEASURE the Will
mot p~rovio,) than the statements contained
in Democratic papers high in the favor OF
the Democracy of the State in question"
-[MO. JOURNAL
We would have you produce no evil
Idence to prove a "ixed fact" which has
never been denied, to wit that some north
|ern Democrats favored the measure, offer
ed as a p~roviso to the three million bill, by.
david Wilmot. The multifarious whirls
and bubbles of the Journal are no less re-
Imarkable, than is efforts, when beaten, TO
dodge and m~isconstrue issues are ridicu-
Ilous. The Editor of that paper now would
endeavor to make us say that no Democrats
lof the north favored that measurc;-we said
no such thing. But we did say, from the
best evidence, we, or the Editor of the
Journal, have upon the subject, that a ma
iority had decided against it; that every
democratic State Convention Of the North
that had spoken upon the subject, had de
cided against it; and that every Wing State
Convention that had spoken npon the sub
iect, HAD DECIDED FOR IT. But says the
journal, the Herkimer Democratic State
lConvention of New York did not denounce
it, but upon the contrary, approved it. And
here he enters upon one Of his arguments
Ito prove that the Ilerkimer Convention was
a State ConrcniiOn, and represented the
whole Democratic party of New York
We did not expect to have TO expose this
last abGurdity or ignorance of the mighty
Editor, nor rave we, for he has done it to
perfection. To contend that the Herkimer
IConvention reflected the will of the State:
can he proven only by admitting, that it re
Elected the will of the Wing party together
with the Proviso wing of the Democratic
party, which is nearer the truth than any
position taken by that journal since it has
mooted this question. But TO say tfiatit re-
lectcd the will Of the majority of the dem
~ocratic party is too ridiculous to fail TO elicit
d smile cvcn CT men of his own party
docs the Editor not know that the SYRIA
lcuse Convention was called by both wings
of the Democratic party, those in favor o!
the ~proviso and those against it? That ii
was acknowledged by both divisions of tie
~party, SO far as 10 have their representatives
there! That speeches were made by boil
before the Convention, and that a majority
thus obtained, decided against the Proviso:
Ives! and does he not know that il was no
until after the provisomcn found themScive:
in the minority, that they called the lierkl'
ncr Convention composed exclusively OF
their own stripe, and there denounced the
Syracuse Convention in which they hat
participated and been defeated? We!
might the Journal then say the lierkimei
Convention gave it a unanimous vote. But
we did not intend to enter into an argument
with the Journal upon this subject, the roin'
lis too clear to admit further argument with
Tout becoming ridiculous.
The resolutions passed by the Whig meet,
ling, which the Journal has been trying to
defend, characterized the provisO as Demo
cratic, after dehouncing it, by designating
it the p~roviso, Sc, "~offercd by David Will
, mot a Democratic member from Pennsylva-
MIA" We have shown from the best evi.
dence known to the people that the Wings
gave it a warmer support than the Demo
Gratis wherever an expression has been Civ.
en-, which has more than sustained our posi-
ton. And we might have gone further yet
we could have shown the people that the
Wing State Convention of New Hampshire
not content with approving of the Pro
Iviso, ACTUALLY NOMINATED THE ABoLIrIoN
,IcAND1DATE FOR GOVERNOR AS THEIR OWN.
e ".A frst-rate Notice IN the BOSton Nor
lining Posi."-The Boston Post is famou:
C for its "frst rate notices." but the follow
: ing, of Mr.. Van Buren, the younger, is the
e best we have ever seen in that journal:
q lie that 0LeD2Dks to make a Wing of me