Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1853-06-18


again as brethren and try to ad Just the scales in
the Convention so that all shall have their ''por
ton in due season, that go away dissatisfied"
and the good and true democratic craft have prof
it thereby" Very respectfully,
d. WALKER.
Letter Of James PhelaH, Esq.
D. WALKER, ESQ EDITOR OF THE VIcKsBURG
"SENTINEL"-SIR: The article in your paper of
the 2lst instant suggested by the late meeting in
Chickasaw county, does me injustice. l desire to
correct it. You will pardon me, if my attempt to
do so, shall be regarded as the "extreme OF i'm
pudence" | shall be brief-using few words and
plain ones. propose no ,xpanation of my pres
ent course, nor of the reasons which impcl it. To
do that would require more time and than
design to employ this occasion. With certain
sentences of your article alone have 10 do
They personal to myself.
In speaking of those who participated in the
ChickaSaw meeting, you say: "One of the gen
tlemen MIR. James Phelan, was quite prominent
actor in the Convention, (Jackson) AID how he
can reconcile his present course with professions
understood him to make in The C0noention, ace
do not KNOX,
The italics in the above are my own, | desire
to know in what this prominence consists ?
made no speech in the Convention; did not utter
dozen words during its sitting, and those only
with reference to some matter of form At what
time then, and upon what question, those
professions" made, which, you understood
them, are irreconciable with my 'present course?"
failed to obtain the honor of personal intro
ducon to you, and could not therefore have made
them privately. Your remark, however, that they
were made ''in the convention forbids this idea
Again 1--WE clearly understood him to say,
that he and his friends, and Davis friends, attend
ed the convention in 00Od I0Uh.'
That we did so attend is ''true-most true"-
1t would be SO presumed in the first instance. No
one charged us otherwise. Professions Of .'qood
faith" were. therefore, not needed. When and
to whom they 50 CLEARLY made -
Again: He (Phelan) was warm in bis stric-
lures upon some who stood in armed hostility 10
the convention because they feared they would not
be nominated by it to Office
/ have no remembrance of having done any
such thing. / did no such thing. l never utter
ed single structure upon any gentleman who was
an aSplrant for a nomination at Jackson. know
of no one who was standing in armed hostility
to its action. Who were those ''SOme" that stood
thus armed. and who were ''hey' that thus feared
the loss of nomination. and when and where,
and to whom did make those ''warm structures
upon them % The charge thus made, if true,
would convict me of deception, ia support of
mere men, which | did not practice, aud of
hypocrisy vi winch 1 dn lncdpdOie.
Again; THE case of Mr.. Nabers who received
the deserved caStigation given by Mr. Phelan
because he refused to enter the contention and take
lis chances before 1t, but held with the deter
mlnaton to do Mr.. Davis intends to do run
any how, is in the estimation of plain men far
preferable to that of Mr.. Phelan or his friend,
Col. Davis"
In this sentence, yoar idea is palpable and Ian
9uage plain-lhat denounced MIR. NabtrS be-
cause he refused to enter the jackson Convt ntion
and take his chances before it, but arrayed him
self against It's action. This is not so. Your ar
gumcnt is, to place the case of Davis and Nabers
before the jackson Convention, upon the same
footing, IN order 10 show my inconSistency-and
1t derives its force alone from your inaccurate re-
membrance OF facts, or careleS>neSs Of composition
More caution Or better memory would have de-
prived you Of the criticism. 1T was not in the
Convention that spoke of Mr.. Nabers at ALL
Nor were my remarks made with reference TO his
chances before ii. Neither did ! castigate him for
the reasons you asSign-''bccause he would not
take his chances before it." 1t was at certain
c0ucus-''W whereby hangs a tale''-held In the OF
hce OF the "MlssSsippian, on Monday night,
that the remarks were made, to which you alludt,
and they were made in connection altogether diff
lercnt from that in which you seek to apply them.
Let me detail them. When the proceedings of
that caucus had developed enough even for the
"n'nt.dted to see that its object the selection
OF State Rights candidate for Governor--for
which there were many rivals-and the nomina-
ton Of Union, man for Congress, the name OF
Mr.. Nabers was proposed This nomination was
distinctly based by the gentleman who made it,
upon the ground that Mr.. Nabers would not so
into their District Convention-that he was popu-
lar--that they were afraid of his opposition and
therefore desired to float him from the District by
nominating him from the State at large. 1t WAS
then that addressed the caucus in the remarks
to which you refer. objected 10 giving our Union
lri>nd the candidate Tor Congress, at that late
day and the consequent defeat Of Davis, because
conceived 1t would be to infict wrong upon him
and his friends, for reasons which then frankly
assigned But said |. should it be determined lc
give the candidate for Congress to our Union
friends. ! was opposed to the nomination of d
man then standing in armed hostility TO the usages
OF the party, and whose only claim to favor was
based upon our cowardice, and dread Of his oppo-
sltlon. This is my correction; and the differences
between the case as you state IL and the facts i
this. denounced Mr.. Nabers because he refused
to submit his claims-to District Convention, and