Sauk Rapids frontierman. [volume] (Sauk Rapids, M.T. [i.e. Minn.]) 1855-1860, 1855-09-06
MISREPRESENTATION.

~ MISREPRESENTATION.
III The resolution endorsing the National
Democracy was very properly and or
derly voted down. ". Dem, ,t;s En-
We copy the above choice announces
ment in relation to the insult offered the
Democratic yparty BY the RICE Dele
gates,s from the NJ NJ Democrat simply
to show the position Of that Journal TO-
wards the National, Democracy. in it's
estimation i was al very proper and gs
orderly to role dotsn aIresolntion approx
ing the National ADMINISTRATION, aud
very proper and orderly to throw over
hoard the National democracy. But
such conduct must be expected Of those
who desert PRINCIPLES for MEE.-- Sank
Rapids Fspntisrm,an. !.
:. Those. who have read the North West-
ern Democrat regularly will instantly
perceive the gross injustice done us ia
the above three lines, which: the Ssnk
Rapids Frontierman claims TO have copi-
ed from a former number Of our paper,
1t puts language into our mouth we
never used. In abiding to the bunco1nbe
resolutions introduced inthe Democrat
ic Convention byfa plant tool OLA few
boilers from the will of the majority, we
stated that they s were very properly
and orderly voted down !" In the first
place it was known to the Convention
that their mover ;niended To boil, and that
the resolutions, including an unqualified
endorsement of an sexceptionable Cover
nor, were designed TO form the grounds
upon which his withdrawal from the Con-
vention should be based, and from that
cause alone, it is claimed that the full
some iaudations Of a gubernatorial mas
ter s ,usre gerry orderly and properly voted
do,pn, IN. w Dem,
/, Our amia bic cotenporary at Mime
apqliss cannot divert US from the true
issue between the Rice men and the
supporters ef the Democratic Candidate
for Delegate TO Congress, Mr.. OLMsrEp.
by any ludicrous exhibition he may
think think proper 70 make Of himself. We
intend 70 keep these repudiators q, the
National Democracy and the National
Administration close BY their own Ian
guage and their own acts. We shall
not allow them to draw us off TO the dis
cussion Of side questions, Of 70 any per-
sonal alteration Of words with unim-
portant individuals.
|NH 4! tfJlf e3t f433S III S4&5s@
Now here are 2 couple Of doctors Of
some sort disagreeing over il matter Of
fact. We repeat you did say that the
resolutions endorsing the Baltimore
Platform s were very properly. and or
DERBY voted down You. say yop never
said So, You insist that We have done
you injustice in the two lines we allege
to have copied from your paper. 1--we
hare, done you injustice, why do ypn not
republish the article from which the two
lines.we have copied were takens and
thus rRovE 70 your readers and ours,
that we have misrepresented you: You
could easily have done that and Il
would moi have taken one half the space
inyodr paper occdpied'by your silly dia-
tribe aboutus = Werepedt' mat we have
not misrsprese6ledy you. We challenge
you to repubiish the article abiding 10
what you are pIeasea fo cali the .sbun-
cornbe resolutions ~ and from which the
two iiney al The hsad ~ Till article are
taken. 1 viii you so il why did yo 81
not doit'i why 10 you go,iRfoo long
s4pldndtion " what you saiid, when what
you actually did isay couId be placed 81.
fore your readers il OH, quarter Of ths
time Arc you affaid of conviictinlRS
yourselfs Are yoI dow t|w, ashamed q
your own paragraph II You lre IL no e.
spublisk II over again, ana sass sany I'LL Il:
Their bahdyfog ii Wofds. Wa ieii Oil
readers that We has sa not His esented
yod, ana nov bsf5fts them w w ask ",
to rspublish the entire articls nom s6icI
W. copied. This i sftainly VI ry lsi if
We allow YOU Is 81 yosig ow WI Wilai ISSs
II the republication III iii you lid "a Il Il
relation 70 The Rejection of thss tssaoIIu''
tions don't convict yol thelrs must iiS sps
tie matter, Your own i language III II o 81
only evidence I! WIZ " eobld coy 4, u SG
it.would bs ii s ei l rrsc ir III 10 ia