Herald of the times, and Rhode Islander. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1846-1849, 1847-05-04
From the Warren Star of Saturday.


We give in to-days paper an article from
the Newport Herald of the Times, on the re-
suit of the late election, referring more partic-
ularly to the vote in Warren, for member of
Congress. We shall not enter into newspa-
per discussion about the course large number
of our citizens saw fit to pursue, in Withholding
their votes from Mr.. Cranston, the candidate
Of the Law and Order party. The article in
que ston pretends to give the facts in relation
to the proceedings on the petition Of Coomer
Halle and Others before the General Assem-
| bly,. In the main il is correct, so far as our
recollection serves us. There is, however, one
| important fact which the writer has omitted to
me ntion. II should be known that the CON-
mittee to whom this petition was referred did
not report until the third week of the January
session that although they reported in favor
of its continuance to the next session, the
House refused to continue and granted the
prayer of the petition by 6 or majority that
two or three days elapsed before the commit
tee reported bill, and two or three days more
before the bill was taken up. The Newport
editor would carry the idea that the vote on
granting the prayer of the petition was recon-
sdered before any action was had on the bill
when the fact is, the bill was rejected, and then
the motion TO reconsider was made and carried.
| The writer also refers to several charges,
said to have been made by the voters Of War
rem, against Mr.. Cranston. OF course we can
not say but certain individuals may have made
the charges referred to but this much we do
say, that three Of the charges are new 10 us.
| They do not accuse Mr.. G.. of being infu-
enced by Mr.. Bullock OF Mr.. Blake. (See the
vote given for Blake for Attorney General
Most of the persons who voted against him,
were Influenced by causes unconnected with
the anne exation question) But they do accuse
him ofmaniiesting '.an improper bias and par
tiality IN favor of Brstol" E"
/ They do not accuse Mr.. G. ofbeing influence
ed either by Mr.. Bullock or Mr.. Blake, in the
selection of the committee. But they do say,
that according to all parliamentary rules the
gentleman who made the motion for the appoint.
ment Of the committee, should have been named
as one Of that committee.
II They dn not arn"sc Mr.. q. of influencing
the Newport delegation. (See the vote for
Lieut. Governor) The petitioners never ex.
pccted from the first to get a single vote from
Newport.
i The petitioners and the people Of Warren
were satisfied with the committee, notwith.
standing their belief that the usual course of
appointment had, in part, been departed from.
The voters Of Warren entertain the belief,
that the bill, after il was reported upon, was
kept back by the Speaker, in order that il might
De tdken up Wncn tnere was tnin mouse, or
that il might be delayed until it was too late TO
get il through the Senate.
Il But the writer has not touched the sore place
/ A remark, said TO have been made by G. the
evening ater the vote was taken by which the
bill was rejected, might, probably, explain the
why's and the wherefores" But as we have
said before, zoe shall not discuss the reasons.
H A true history Of the whole proceedings on
the Coomer Halle petition, both in and out OF
the House, from the time it was first presented
until the petitioners had leave to withdraw,
would read well in print, and we may be in
duced hereafter TO write it out.
We have few remarks Of our own 10
offer on the above commentary-particu-
larly as to any supposed inaccuracy in
our statement Of the 22d, and In reply to
several allegations Of misconduct in Mr.,
ChANsToN, now for the first time brough,
TO our knowledge.
/ II is alleged, in the first place, in these
remarks, that We passed unnoticed an
impor,an, fact in our history of'he Coon