The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1854-07-14

he
n,ircpIes il fairly unde rsood, would he r"pndlsIed
- ,bc neopIe Of this District. To show that our
Jews upon this sUhjec; not altogether I'M
f,rndad We publish below a letter, addressed 10
Gentleman Of this town, from the Hon. i. l..
Cipgman, in answer 10 enquiry, whether, II he
were in the District he would support Gen. Dockery.
Here IL IS
HOUSE, OF REPRESENTATIVES,, }
June 18th, 1854.
My DEAR SIR The enquiry in your letter is
one which have several times had occasion 10
answer to friends in the District, as well in
conyersann with different prisons at this place.
II | were in the Stale should not think of sup.
porting Gen Dockery. have valid political ms
well as personal reasons for opposing him.
Want OF time only prevents my giving at length
these reasons, but may refer 10 some OF them.
II is known that Gen. Dockery took the same
posirIons that Coz. Gather did in the canvass
against me IN 1851. lie avowcd publicly that he
ready 10 vote mnn and money 10 coerce South
Carolina, (nr according TO the newspaper &C.
counts) even North Carolina, in the event of her
seeding for what she might deem sufficient
cnuse, &c. My position was different, you
know; and as | then thought it right. Is |
sustained IN il by vote of two or 'hree 10 Of
the lrermen Of my district, it could hardly be ex-
pected that ! should now abandon my opinion and
go 10 Gen. Dockrrv. regard this very issue
those he - trying TO make al this time. The
South beng The weaker section in point Of num-
hers, only prntrcf her rights in The Unon by
having il understood that her sons will stand bv
her IN the last emergency. In fact, far as
understand Gen. Drckerv's views rs 10 the rela-
I'VE powers and duties OF the Federal and Stale
Gpvrrnmrnts, we dilF;.r entirely. | look upon him
as having adopted the opinions Of the most ultra
fedrrni>rs and consolidntonists of our day. His
course upon questions CONNECTED with these prin-
n's, and IN fact upon most practical measures
d:--ng our service in Congress, has bern different
ir.,n Gny own.
In the tate Presidential contest, too his sympa-
tbs appeared Ia tie with the Northern or AMI
eisr.ry section Of the Wing party. In fact, Their"
lew public with whom differ more
lnnrnugnly than with Gen. Dockery.
WTh respect TO the dist rIbuon of the proceeds
at tn. public lands. ought, perhaps TO say that
;a"rr has not, rs far ! can remember, been any
serious attempt to get through such bill during
my " hole service in Congress. A. least for many
wears past sucn movement has been made
G,n. DocEery diH not, so FIR as / kno,n, erer IN
fr)'acc UytcnIpt TO intrOrtrce a bill far such a
propose. | presume his failing to do so, must
have arisen from his Seejn" utut there acuS not the
Slightest chance II carrying such prOject.-
here Is even less nj this time. II he, " hen
member Of Congress, did not even Introduce bill.
IS he had the power TO do, What matters il rs to
his present opinions lie must know that. even
if he were Governor OF the Stale, he woult have
no more power over the question than any Justice
at he Peace CT private citizen. The cIAmor
r7iEed on this subject by c"riain pnliricians is
merely made for political eff CT. Without the
slightest expecin'lon of Carrying through any such
measure, they merely striving ca'ch votes
rom rhuse who DO not understand the condition o.
things.
The circumstances that Gen. Dockcry wa
ed Nv L. bfIy OT
called Wing Convention. does not give him am
additional cInlms to my support. That C"nren
lion was mainly controlled by influences hostile
10 me, both politically and personally, and have
reason 10 believe that prominent purpose of III
nctnrs was 10 I'M urr m" and defeat my P"lilica
friends who might chance to be candidates for lne
Legislature.
Gen. DockAry's course in some other respects
gives him no claims on me individually. Daring
the Presidential canvass in the autumn OF 1852
there was publication III the form of an editorial
one Of the Scott papers, I do not remember
Ehich, saying in substance that Gen. ID 'rkery
had declared in some speech that no one n Wash.
irg'ou could find out up The close Of the session
nl Congress whether was far against Gen.
Scott. When this matter rCferrru to during
discussion al LeuoIr, on the day preceding the
Presidential clccIon, denounced il : faSt'hood,
and requested my opponent in the discussion TO
notify Gen. Dnckrry 20 that effect. W hen 1t was
referred to in the last canvass by Col. Gather
spoke Of it IN Ike terms, and my declaration sub
scQuCntly found It's way into several at the news
papers of The State. or course il could not have
escaped Gen. Dnckcry's knowledge, and he ought
therefore, in my opinion, either To- have disavOwcd
the original statement taken some step in juSiifi
cation OF hms,lE | fell a; liberty 10 drnounce III,
staiamrn mt in these decided terms not only b,
my opposition 10 Gen. Scott was notorious, bur
also because | had heard from more than one in
dvidual that General Dockcry omplaIninp
during The Session OF my hostility Ia his candidate
and underwriting counicract the influence Of thai
opposition in the Stale.
His conduct of my constituents. Gen
Edney, which think you have been arPrised oi,
would OF itself b" sufficient 10 deprive him OF any
Claim 10 my support as far as personal reasons
against him could operate. My letter, however,
Is growing longer than intended, and therefore
] merely say in conclusion that am opposed Ia
Gen. Dockcry's election, both upon political and
personal grounds.
Had he bren a candidate for Congress iii our
District have no doubt but that he would, on
accoun, Of his previous course, have been beaten
much further than Col. Gather was.
have published nothing in relation TO him. be-
cause | have work enough TO DO here. Having
no desire to dictate 10 other gentlemen as 10 what
course they should pursue, The other hand
have no wish 10 conceal my opinions from either
friends opponents You therefore lihPr-