Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-05-29
TFor the Indiana State sentinel.l

Will Mr.. Brown publish the following:
In looking the proceedings OF the Judicial
for the nomination of Prosecuting Attorney for the fifth
Judicial Circuit they officially appeared in the State
Sentinel OF the 18th inst somewhat surprised that
those proceedings, as published, contained but Very
partial statement OF what occurred al The time. Bcey
ing that the gentleman who reported the proceedings,
committed the unntentiOnay, beg leave sup
py the omission; and rst il appears from the proceed
inas that Marion county fully and fairly represented
in the meeting, but nothing is said of the refusal of
majority of the e delegates present. (who dele
gates the Congressional Convention TO take part IN
the proceedings OF the meeting; when in fac Mr. Hun
ter on behalf Of the delegates from Perry township
1.-THE only out township represented in the meetng) and
majority of the delegates from Centre township stated
that they could do But few delegates of Marion
county pre- SENT in consequence OF the meeting be-
ing held in the night and Mr.. Hunter, and majority OF
the delegates present fom Marion county, very properly
declined to take the responsibility oil acting or casing
the of Marion county for Prosecuting Attorney
under the circums But Samuel p Daniels, back
ed by some two three Others (nether Of them living
out of the city OF lndianapols persisted ia casting thu
vote of the county; thus Marion county represented
and may be permitted here TO say that have not met
single Democrat oil our county, Who knowing Tue acts
approves of the pursued bySamue p Daniels,
who regards himself bound by the action OF that meet
ing. The same state of sentiment exists among the
Democrats of johnson county, whose delegates withdrew
FROM the meeting In the published proceedings in the
Sentinel il is simply stated that Hendricks county
not represented; when, in fact Messrs Gregg and
Crawford Of that county present. authorized 10 act
by resolution OF that meeting is true, however that
these gentlemen were not regularly appointed by the
Democrats OF their county convention, delegates,
but il is equally that the popular will which that
meeting pretended TO represent, as fully consulted
in their selection in the selection of the delegates from
any other county. When Hendricks county called,
Mr. Gregg stated that he and his colleague had come
prepared to the Of their county but under the
crcumstances they would decline have any thing
do with The proceedings. Why were these facts not
published Again, the reported proceedings contain 40
ailusion the withdrawal OF the of Mr. Over
street and myself candidates before that meeting.
The friends Of Mr.. O., as well my friends, were
unwilling that claims should be submitted TO meet
ing constituted that was, (there being but three
counties out Of six who were willing TO take the respon
siby in the deliberations Of the meeting ia meeting
which founded the democratic principle
Of the representation Of the ri Of the people, and which
could carry with it naraI polccr whatever. They
believe that a nomination by such meeting, would
leonard the success of the Democratic candidate, and
therefore they unwilling to submit the claims OF
their respective favorites action why these facts
have not been published, will not pretend to say; but
will say, that do not regard the nomination OF that
meeting composed of only three of the
ties OF the circuit. Of any binding force whatever. am
ever ready abide the decision Of majority Of the
Democrats Of the circuit and would heartily support the
nominee OF convention which reflected the urH Of
the Democracy of the circuif; but in common with
thousands Of Democrats good and true will never
Weld 10 such an imposition is attempted be
forced upon the party-as Democrat and freeman
cannot do H.. JOSEPH I. ROBERTS.
INDIANAPOLIS, May %, 1851.