New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-10-25

the convention, or have facility recognized its
authority, for afterwards opposing its behests.
Every one protesting to be a true and consis-
tent democrat is willing to be tried by this sys-
tenn. and none will be recognized by them who
will not surrender his own claims for the good
Of the whole
Under these circumstances, it becomes impor-
tant to inquire how far Col. Marks has acted
consistently, and how far he has abided by the
obligations he was under to his party. after a
candidate for the State Senate had been nom
| mated against him. 1t is unnecessary to al
lude to what part he took in drumming up
voters at the primary election, so long as be
thought he would get the nomination, and how
in fact he actually voted for himself Perhaps
in voting personally he may have been prompted
by laudable ambition to show his strong pre-
elections in favor of conventions-but this
aside. The result showed the contrary.
few weeks after the nomination of Mr..
wickliffe by majority of forty six votes, we
find an announcement in the Bayou Sara Ledger
proclaming Col. Marks as the '' Union candi-
date" against the very man who in the Conven-
tion he had pledged himself to support. Col.
Marks had made novel discovery just at this
time. He ascertained that he was not hard
shell convention democrat, but Union man,
all for the honor, glory and perpetuity of the
Union, and nothing for democracy Democracy
was very convenient creed for the Colonel as
long as he had chance for the nomination, but
it suited him better to be q Union man when that
nomination had unexpectedly slipped from his
grasp. The whole truth of the matter is this :
Col. Marks was Marks man, and he cared not
a fig for the success of either party so long as
Marks could be elected by one or the other.
The apostacy of Col. Marks wars assailed
with considerable bitterness at the time-the
more as he had always before secured the sup
port of the democratic party in his parish, and
had never asked aught from them but what was
granted. That he should prove himself re-
creant and unmindful of past favors, SO far as
to lend himself to a scheme concocted by q
leader of clique, for the purpose of crea-
ting dissension in the democratic ranks, was
an example of ingratitude that shook the
esteem of his most attached friends.
Whether the democratic party will endorse
such gross desertion of principles, and such
falsifying of pledges by electing Col Marks, re-
mains to be seen. There have been few examples
of such recklessness of party organization for
personal ends as was, on the occasion referred
to, manifested by Col Marks. We would ask OF
that party whether, seeing the designs of their
candidate for Auditor to divide their ranks, they
can. consistently with their avowed principles,
support him for the Office to which he now
aspires. There is, doubtless, no frmer demo-
crat than Col Marks, when he happens to be
the nominee of his party but he can be equally
as firm as an Independent when it so happens
that he does not succeed in getting the nomina-
ton. He is sufficiently careful of his own in
terests when they conflict with those ofhs party.
We will see if that party has sufficient regard
or its dignity to rebuke his apostacy at the
approaching election.