Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1852-03-06

No assault moro vantonv opposed to the truth of his
toy than this charge by the Clarion But to put tins
point prominent is now our Intention and themode off
doing this, is very simple. We quote from our own
editorial of January 24th the upon which the Cla
rion relies as the basis for its comments and 1t does
not uncoak that paper, forcing it out as an organ of
bold and barefaeed misrepresentation then we are en-
tirev incapable of understanding language Here is
what did say-read it.
stWe cannot say that the convention was pack
ed''-we shall not say it was, but we will present
point defined by the action of the convention,
and leave the reader to reach his own conclusions.
Let the reader refer to the resolution introduced
by Mr. Elicit, as given in letter in another col
umn. No one could offer any objection to that
resolution 1t was Just and in our opinion proper
because all resolutions involving principle should
either be acted upon in open convention, or refer
red to a committee raised for the purpose OF pre-
pairing resolutions for the convention to act upon.
Resolutions therefore, involving principle are APP
propriatey referred and this reference, If we are
right, ought to be considered by the committee as
informal instruction to consderall such resolutions
and when it reports embrace in It's resolutions SO
much of the subject matter of the various resou-
tons as it may be possible. This course is calcu-
lated to harmonic party-it embraces the various
sentiment of various localities, and it yields up
nothing substantial. Another advantage flows
from this course it prevents excitement by pre-
venting useless debate among friends and fellow
laborers.
Immediately after the adoption of Mr.. Ellett's
resolution our friend, c. E. Hooker, of Kinds, of
fered and the convention adopted resolution, the
language of which cannot give, tor the reason
that it is not to be found in the published proceed
ngs. Without intending to question the motives
of Mr.. Hooker, we must say that the resolution
confined the action of the committee on resolutions,
= Il IL
if any discretionary powers in regard to its action
At the moment of its passage we remarked to those
near us that it tie gag and that If the com
mttee submitted to it, it was made OF very tame
material Mr. Hooker explained his resolution
thus that the basis of the committees report
should be the Baltimore resolutions of 1848, and
that the committee should also report the Kentucky
and Virginia resolutions of 1889 in extenso-
This resolution limited the committee, and taken
in connection with Mr.. Elletts resolution referring
all resolutions involving principle to this committee,
as completely gagged members, would a reso-
luton in direct terms. For instance, had mem
Der proposed the subtance and part of the language
| of the 5th resolution of the June platform OF
1851 asserting the right Of State to seceed, such
resolution would have gone to the committee, and
that being instructed to take for its basis the Bal
more resolutions of 1848, the resolution would
have been thrown under the table, because the
right of secession is not set forth in them-hence
I the basis is worthless. But say they, and that
was our young friend, Hookers argument, that
the right Of secession is set forth in the resolutions
of '98-9 This is true. But this is questioned
| BY thousands--the June convention either acted
very wisely or the reverse If it held that those
resolutions placed the right of secession so prom-
| nently forward as to exclude denial, it was but
the work of superrogation in asserting that right
in form undeniable, asst did in its 9Th resolve
If it believed the right drawn from those resou-
tons susceptible of denial then it but did its duty
in asserting it in form free from denial. This it
! did-wisely as we hold. The resolution of Mr..
! Hooker limiting the action of the committee, and
! Mr. Ellett's resolution of reference gagged mem
/ bers-the former giving the basis of action to the
committee and the latter making the reference of
all resolutions involving principles to this commit
tee necessary.
We held a resolution we intended to offer to the
convention, but the resolution of Mr. Hooker prov
ed to us the uselessness of presenting it. Its ref
erence would have been sure and its resurrection
i wholly uncertain. We had another reason for
i Withholding it until the committee reported. Col.
i A. H. Handy of Madison, introduced a series of
q resolutions concise and strictly orthodox. If the
committee acted upon them, further action would
have been useless. Weproposed then, to await the
report of the committee Col Handy's resolutions
were thrown under table-Mr. Hooker's resolu-
ed the resolutions of 1848 and 1913, and Foote,
with his Federal allies will endorse all the Resolu
tons passed by party claiming to be purely De-
mocratic State Rights %
Comment is unnecessary upon the above. Let the
Clarion do US justice before its readers.
4th The Clarion asserts that it opposed the reso-
uons introduced by Mr.. Barry for the that it
concurred with Messrs. Davis and Hooker, sin the
opinion that they unnecessary because they
were mere elaboration of principles distinctly
ciated in the Virginia and Kentucky resolution of 98
and '99' and alWays embodied in the resolves of the
"National Democratic convention 'Esince the party
has had an existence Ofcourse the Clarion under
stood clearly what was talking about when made the
above broad assertion If did not it has done Messrs
Davis and Hooker injustice, it has represented Mr..
Barry insisting upon points which must render him
ridiculous Let us prove that the Clarion did mis-
represent either Messrs Davis and Hooker, or Mr..
Barry, or this Press.
i Mr. Barry's first resolution was in these words
RESOLVED, That the delegates appointed by this
Convention to attend the National Convention to
assemble at Baltimore be instructed to insist upon
clear recognition of the rights of the save-hold-
ing States, and the avowal by that Convention of
its hostility to any further agitation of the slavery
f question by Congress: otherwise to withdraw
therefrom, declaring, do, our deter
mination not to sustain any nominees who are
not pledged to respect and defend constitution
al rights.
1t may be possible that the Clarion can find some
thing like the above in the resolutions of $685. and
AZ,