Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1851-09-24
COMMUNICATION IN REPLY TO AN AID
DRESS OF THOMAS +. BOWIE, ESQ.


Mr.. WELLs-Dear Sir: The following commu-
nication in answer to an address of THOMAS F.
BOWIE, ESQ.,, published in the Planters .adrocate,
has been written for publication to the Editor of
that paper. Will you oblige me by also inserting
it in your paper.
Your friend,
Sept. 23d, 1851. GEO. BRENT.
Editor of Planters .Adrocate:
DEAE SIR d: A copy of your paper OF the
17lh has accidentally just fallen into my
hands, In il notice communication from
Thomas F. Bowie, Esq, addressed to the
voters of the first Congressional district Of
tice.
|! is accompanied by letter, (in which
my name is used which, this communica-
ton says, evil speak for itself, and fully
substantia,e the charge of persecution car
ried on against Prince Georges county and
myself ct. F. B, E<q,) in particular, for
several Years pas, by 'wlre pullers' in certain
parts of this Congressional district"
If by the remarks above quoted, i. is de-
signed in the slightest degree 10 impu,e 10
me any attempt or desire to prosecute
Prince Georges county. or the author
Of this address, do not hesitate to say
that the imputation is wholly untrue. The
term "wire pullers' pass over as unwor-
thy ofno,ice. regard the people Of Prince
Georges as high-minded, honest and in
,elligent community. and my feelings to-;
wards them have never been otherwise than
of the most friendly character. For the
gentleman, who is now occupying the atti-
,ude of "No-party" Wing candidate for
Congress, had felt the kndest regard, and
there never was the slightest prompting of
my heart towards any persecution Of him,
even had il, at any time, been in my power.
Blu, an intelligent community will at once
see, that the letter referred to does not sus-
tain the statement. The only thing it pnr-
ports to sci forth is, that the delegates from
Charles to the Congressional Convention of
this district, which met in 1912, pledged the
vote of Charles to Mr.. Bowie, cor any other
person, the choice of Prince Georges, at
the next Congressional Convention which
might be held by the Wing parity" and
which was held in 1919.
The delegates from Prince Georges in
1912 have been and are mistaken in refer
ence TO this matter. have no doubt they
have only stated what they believe to be
true, but in putting the construction they
have upon any conversation which may
have had with them, they have greatly mis-
understood me.
In the first place, no such pledge could
have been given, because no set of delegates
at one Convention can assume TO pledge
those who are TO come after them in a sub
sequent and different Convention. A pledge
necessarily presupposes power TO enforce
a compliance. The delegates from Charles
to the Convention in 1917, in the nature
Of things, had no power over delegates, who
were to be appointed two years from that
time, and who were to be members of a
Convention which had no, yet been called.
There must have been some object for
this pledge, if it was given. Was it to Sc
cure the nomination Of Gen. Chapman ],
is said to have come from his friends, and
this could have been the only object. 1t is
clearly the object imputed in this communi-
cation of Mr.. Bowie.
As the pledge is stated to have been made
to the delegates from Prince Georges, as
suming that the object was to secure the
nomination of Gen. Chapman, it must have
been made to procure their votes. By re-
ferring TO the state Of things in tina, Con-
vention, it will be seen that the vote OF
Prince Georges county was not necessary
to nominate him in 1917, When the dele
gates met in BIadensburg, j, was soon as
cer,ained that majority of them were for
Gen. Chapman. The whole number of
delegates was ,wentyseven Calvert, ST.
Mary's and Charles had instructed their
delegates to 20 for him, and in very short
time after reaching Blsdensburg learned
that he would also &c. the vote Of Anne Ar
undel. Fourteen votes were necessary to a
choice, and these counties gave him seventeen.
Montgomery county intended to present
Mr.. r. J. Bowie, and Prince Georges coun-
ty Mr.. Thomas F. Bowie. After it was as
certsined and known that Gen. Chapman
would certainly be nominated, proposition
was made by some one of the delegates,
do not now recollect by whom, but certain
ly i. did no, come from me- to this effect
,ha, VI on,gomery and Prince Georges should
both agree not 10 present their respective
candidate. as he could not be nominated
and that we should assemble in Convention
and unanimously nominate Gen. Chapman
! After considerable delay and consultation
among themselves, these counties finally &C
quesced in the proposition. The Conven-
ton met, letter was read from Thomas +,
Bowie, Esq, which was published al the
time among the proceedings of the Conven-
ton, and Gen. Chapman was nominated by
resolution.
have heretofore seen the other dele
gates who were with me from Charles in
This Convention, and DR.. EdeIen, who was
one of HE delegates from ST. Mary's, and
they all state that they heard nothing and
knew nothing of any pledge. took occa-
sion in The subsequen, Convention in 1919
having heard il rumored that Gen. Char
mans friends in 1S47 had Dledged them