The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-05-31
The Washington Union and the Georgia
Democracy.

|
The Washington Union and the Georgia
(; Democracy.
The following article speaks for itself. we
do not desire to revive or protract a controversy
with the Union after the retirement of the late
editor and before the succession, as we hope to
find in the latter one with whom We will not
disagree. We are not, however, at all surprised
at the resentment of the Georgia Democratic
delegation. And the case is striking illustra
ton of the manner in which things are some
times done by organs, and the value of that or
gan censorship which the Southern Press has
exercised.
If the Union delegates of Georgia can be adj
United into the convention to represent the De-
mocracy of Georgia, why, then, the whole sys-
TEN is farce.
For the Southern Press.
| WASHINGTON CRY, ID. c., May 20, 1852.
We the undersigned, delegates to the Nation
al Democratic Convention, appointed by the
Democratic State convention of Georgia, which
assembled at Milledgeve on the 3lst of March
last have Just reason to complain of the con-
duct of the Washington Union, through whose
columns gross injustice has been sought to be
perpetratcd against the Democratic party OF
opportunity afforded by our presence in this
city, for ourselves and our absent colleagues,
and in the name and behalf Of the Democratic
party of Georgia, to protest against the conduct
complained of-and to claim of the entire Dem
ocratic press and party of the Union disposed
to do justice in the matter, candid hearing OF
the case we now submit to their consideration:
| On the 22d inst. an article appeared in the
Washington Union, signed GA UNION DEMO
GRAFT" purporting to give an account of the po-
sition of parties in Georgia. and to discuss the
relative claims of the two delegations from
Georgia to seats in the National Democratic
Convention, to assemble in Baltimore on Tues.
day next, in which article it is contended that
neither of the two delegations IRE, of right, en-
titled to seats in that convention, owing to al
l legged defects in the party organization of both
constituencies appointing them, and suggesting
that the convention should follow the precedent
New York, and admit both.
The editor of the Washington Union pre-
faced the article with some editorial remarks
from which we quote as follows:
"THE PosIrIoN OF THE DELEGATES FROM
GEORGIA TO THE BALTIMORE CONVENTION
We insert the following communication, signed
"A Union Democrat not that We wish to be
understood as having formed definite opinion
in regard to the delicate subject which it dis
cusses, but that the friends of the Democratic
party may see, in good season, what are the
J difficulties likely to grow out of the appearance
at Baltimore of two sets of delegates to the
Baltimore Convention, deriving their credentials
from two different party organizations, each
claiming to be Democratic"
"The communication to which we refer pre-
sents the case as understood by a Union Dem
ocrat Of Georgia. Doubtless its statement and
view will be followed by others of a different
character, which we shall cheerfully publish
Our object is to enable those whose province it
will be to dispose of the whole subject to be in
possession of such information as will be relia-
BILE. 1t must be the object of all true friends
of the Democratic cause to shape their action in
such a manner as to conciliate conflicting opin-
ions, as far as it can be done without sacrifice
of any vital principle of party organization; and
we trust that the timely examination of the
true character of such opinions will enable the
convention to dispose of them in such manner
as that the parties to them will be reconced,
and return to their homes with renewed conf.
dence in the justice and soundness of the dem
ocratic party"
Confding in these professions of impartiality,
and of disposition on the part of the Washing
ton Union to put those whose province it was
to dispose of the whole subject, in possession
Of such information as would be reliable, a
Northern Democrat, gentleman of the highest
J responsibility, an Ex-Governor of one Of the New
England States, called upon the editor of tn,
9 Union and requested him to publish temperate
II respectful and unexceptionabe article he hat
n prepared in reply to "a UNION DEMOCRAT,
and in which were set forth the real facts of thu
!" case, the grounds upon which it is claimed tina
O. We are entitled of right to seats in the Natona
n Convention, as the proper representatives Of tn
il Democratic party of Georgia, and the fact tina
~ there IS no other Democratic organization exist
= ing in Georgia except The one we are appointed
J. to represent IT was desirable that this artcl,
d should appear before the assembling of tn,
o Convention and in the same paper in which IN,
article to which it was reply appeared as Their,
, were many delegates to that Convention presen
y in this city. The reasonable request of th
!. Northern Democrat pas refused by the edito
}. Of the Washington Union, and he was con
strained therefore, to seek publicity for it in tn
, columns Of another paper of this city. The ar
! ticle appeared on the 28th inst in the Souther
re- Press, signed "a NORTHERN MAN; and we re
h fer to it in confederation of all we have her
in stated in regard to its character and positions
We take occasion to state that the article wa
70 written without concert or consultation wit
u the undersigned, or any of us, and its publica
's ton was the first information to us of its exist
Il ence. 1t was voluntary tribute of Northern
!, Democrat to truth and justice.
JAMES GARDNER, Jr., JOSEPH STuRGEs,
II SOLOMON COHEN, c. ]. MUNNERLYN,
II Jos. 8. Heck, A. X. PATTON,
/. w. w. WIcrNs w. II. STYLES,
r. B. HILTON, JOSEPH Day,
" N. L. Bass, o. WARNER.
Democratic papers are requested to copy.