Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1853-05-11

20 the EuH0f 81 tHe CtorNs0<fy 1seys''ef
SIR I'm your paper under the date OF
18th of April last, / find communication
in relation to the Democratic convention
which assembled at Parkersburg on the
9Ist of March, 1853.
To those who were present at that con-
yention, and are acquainted with its pro-
ceedings, the Memorandum" to which /
allude, speaks for itself, and would need
no comment, but to those who are unac-
quainted with the transactions of the con-
vention, except so far as they have ascer-
tanned them from Mr. Lewis or his friends,
it is necessary to say something in regard
to the facts contained in the article to
which refer.
The /" Memorandum commences,
This convention was held at Parkers-
ourg. the residence of Mr. Snodgrass"-
but the " Memorandum forgets to state
that kanawha county first suggested Par
kersburg as the place of holding the con-
yention, and that the suggestion was en-
dorsed by large majority of the coun-
ties of the District. So the place of hold
ing the convention was designa cd by a
county. the delegates from which were
the fast friends of Mr.. Lewis. "Colonel
President, and two other friends of Mr..
Snodgrass. Secretaries" / quote from
the Memorandum" but the Memo
randum" neglects to state that in the
committee on permanent officers, Col.
Stringer was nominated and seconded by
friends of Mr.. Lewis. "There is no ex-
ception to the general remark-ao6enever
IN any county one could be found untirisndl,,
to Mr.. LeaUis. he sUas placed on this commit
tee" Iquote from the " Memorandum"
again in relation TO the committee on Gre
dentials. Let US look for moment at
the organization of that committee. From
Harrison county, there were six delegates.
Three of those, not -four, as the {" Memo
randum" states, were the friends of Mr..
Lewis, and three in favor of Mr. Basel,
and voted for him in the convention-viz:
Messrs. Garlic, Hewes and Steuart. Mr..
Garlic was placed on the committee
From the county of Barbour three dele
gates were present, and Mr.. Callihan who
voted for MIR. Basel in convention, was
placed upon the committee; all the dele
gates from Richie, were in favor of Mr..
Snodgrass, and Mr.. Hall was placed up
on the committee all the delegates from
! Wood county were in favor of Mr. Snod-
grass, and Mr.. Williams was placed upon
| the committee; and so with the county Of
Writ. Six of the seven delegates from
jackson county were the friends of Mr..
Snodgrass. and one of the three was pla-
ced upon the committee; Mr. Sperry, the
only delegate from Gilmer county. was
the friend of Mr.. French. Mrssrs. Neu-
man of Mason Harvey Of Putnam and
Nf 81. NJ
Lewis. At the time the committee was
formed, 1t was stated in convention that
Mr.. Bee was the only delegate present
from Doddridge county. He was conse-
quently placed upon the committee
From the county of Lewis three delegates
were present, and Mr.. Kester was placed
upon the committee. The committee
numbered twelve members, three were
the friends of Mr.. Lewis, two in favor of
Mr.. Basel, one in favor of Mr.. French,
and six for Mr.. Snodgrass, so that Mr..
Snodgrass had not majority of that com
mittee. The two delegates from the coun-
! ty of Lewis, who were the friends of Mr..
Lewis. were closely related 10 that gen.
tleman, the one being his uncle, the other
the son-in-law of his Uncle and does
Mr.. Lewis or his friends desire that the
action of that committee, or of the con-
vention should have been influenced by
gentlemen so closely allied to himself?
The report of that committee will speak
for itself. Let the voters of the district
calmly consider the material of which it
was composed, and judge whether or not
1t was properly organized.
The grounds taken by the "Memoran-
dunn for the withdrawal of the friends
of Mr.. Lewis. and for that gentleman be-
coming candidate, are 1st that the cor
vention disfrnnchised the county of Up
shur, and Cd. that Upshur was disfran-
chised by per capita vote.
Were these the reasons for their with.
drawal, and if so. are they entitled to the
support of the people of this district?
There were two delegates from the
county of Harrison, who claimed to be al
ternates from the counties of Randolph
aud Upshur. The paper under which
they claimed to act as Rlternates from
Randolph county, was written by one Of
them in the town of Parkersburg,-a
he stated before the committee of investi-
CATION, land in the presence of the other)
that his co-alternate was cognizant of all
the facts connected with the said paper at
the time it was presented to the commit
tee on credentials; and yet the Memo
randum would have US believe that it was
all Jest, although the entire 1st day and
part of the Cd was taken up in the dis
cussion of whether it was genuine
or not. If it was a jest. why was not the
proper explanation made as soon as the
objection was made to the admission of
the alternates from Randolph county p
Or, was it not the object of those gentle
men to obtain the nomination of Mr.. Lew