Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1853-05-18
To the Democracy Of this
Congressional District.

Convention which lately assembled In
Parkersburg to nominate a candidate for
Congress. as published by the News" of
that place, one unacquainted with the
facts, would suppose that Mr.. Snodgrass,
of Wood, had received the unanimorse
vote of said convention, and ought 10 be
supported, in good faith. by the Democ-
racy of the district. Such, however. is
not the fact, as We will endeayor to show
in as few words as possible. Before do
ing so, however, we will state that the
News has given an ez pdrte statement IN
order to advance the interests of that gen.
tleman, who was nominated by delegates
representing minority of the Democratic
voters of the district. and to prejudice the
public mind, and more especially the De-
mocracy of the district. against one who
was clearly the choice of the convention :
having majority over all others, and
would have received the nomination on
the final vote. had the convention been or
ganized and conducted according TO the
mode usually adopted by such conren-
tons. Votes of Importance. and effecting
the final result of the convention. were
not taken according TO the scale adopted
by the convention, but by per capita
vote principle ofvoting which was too
unjust and nu-Democratic to be tamely
submitted to by the delegation, in that
convention representing majority of the
Democratic constituency of the district. as
it did. to the little county of Writ. with
less than three hundred Democratic votes.
| FIVE votes in convention, while the county
of Kanawha. with near eight hundred
Democratic votes was allowed but three,
and the counties of Mason and Putnam
but one pote each: when the county oi
Jackson, with smaller Democratic vote
than that of Mason, was allowed seven
votes in convention.
Here we submit the report of the COM
mittee upon credentials. DC. that it may
be seen that we state the facts truly ac-
cording to their report.
Your scommittee respectfully report
that the following gentlemen are present
as delegates to this Convention. and have
produced satisfactory credentials.
Barbour-Josiah w. Rves, John Hoff,
w w. R. Callihan.
Harrison-E. w. Patton, Benjamin
Dolbeare, Crugar w. Smith, David L.
Hewes, William Stewart; John S. CarliIe.
Lewis-Elijah FlesLer, James o. Hara,
Conrad Keisier.
Gilmer-W. w. Sperry.
Wirt-John P. Thomasson. Hugh Ky.
yer, James A. Williamson. F. p. Turner.
Morton Baker.
Jackson-Benjamin Wright. William
Nc Coy. Robert Park. Henry Fitzhugh Jr.,
C.ermont Z. Thaw, James A. Daniels,
Abraham Bowman.
Mason-John G. Newman
Putham-R. I. Harvey.
Kauawha-G. W. Carr, William NJ.
Estill. John P. Anderson.
Wood-John G. Stringcr. A. n. VIII
liams, E. T. Mitchell. l.. p. Neal. G.. O..
Welles, E. Dickson. a. L. Kinnaird, Jas.
Cooper. W. +. McClintick, B. +. Reeder.
B. 4. Penny hacker, Henry Swindler, S.
limerick, William Fought, VIM. Stagg.
Jr., p. Mcpherson, A. G. Clark, -. Nc
Guire.
Rtchie-Cyrus Hall, L. A. Phelps. w.
81. Patton. Ii. B. Collins. Hiram w. Will
kinson. John S. MiIlhone. John Collins.
Doddridge-Ephraim Bee. Thomas S.
Neely.
Your committee report that the follow
ing is the basi. of representation from the
different counties in the District:
Barbour, twelve votes, three delegates,
each entitled to four votes.
Harrison. twenty votes. six delegates,
each entitled 10 three and third votes.
Lewis. eleven votes, three delegates.
each entitled TO three and two-thifd votes
Gilmer, six votes. one delegate.
Writ, six votes, FIVE delegates, each en-
titled to one and one-ffth votes.
Jackson. nine votes, seven delegates,
each entitled TO one and two-seventh votes.
Mason, ten votes, one delegate.
Putnam, seven votes, one delegate.
Kanawha, sixteen votes, three delegates
each entitled to FIVE and one-third votes.
Wood, twelve votes. eighteen delegates.
each entitled to two-thirds of vote.
Ritchie. eight votes. seven delegates,
each entitled to one and one seventh votes.
Doddridge, six votes. two delegates,
each entitled to three votes.
Your committee find no delegates from
the counties of Brax;on, Randolph and
Upshur. Ifpresent, the counties of Up
shur, Braxton and Randolph would be en-
titled to the following votes: Upshur nine,
Braxton six. Randolph seven.
A paper was. however. presented 10
your committee purporiirg to be an ac-
count of meeting held by portion Of
the Democracy of Randolph and motion
made to allow the alternates therein named
who are here present. to cast the vote of
said county in this convention; but your
committee refused to received said paper
and resolved to reject it. and diSallow
any representation under II.
A published account Of a meeting in the
county of Upshur. was presented 10 your
committee, and TWO gentlemen named as
alternates therein were known lobe pres
ent, but your committee resolved thai said