Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-01-10

We do not propose to get angry or call hard
names because few of our Democratic CO.
tempormies and their correspondents have
seen fit to regard with suspicion an article
which appeared in the Sentinel some two
weeks since in relation to the approaching
State Convention. In that article, it may be
remembered, we said it was possible that the
onEeRz;an NIGH sdoatseme other ratio Of
I16tStion than that recommended by
the State Central Committee, and that there
fore it might be we'll enough for the counties
in appointing delegates not to strictly confine
themselves to the number fixed upon by the
Committee. In this article the editor of the
Lafayette American thinks he descries a
mares nest-an attempt at central dicta-
tion"-and proceeds to reid us lecture as
to the jealousy which our Democratic friends
in other portions Of the State regard political
movements at the Capitalize influence of
will take to heart and endeavor to profit by.
But, as to the article in question, we plead
"not guilty. to the charge set forth by the
American. That article was written by the
principal editor of the Sentinel (who, by the
by, is not citizen of the capital, but of a
county on the extreme border of the
State) without the suggestion, solicitation,
or knowledge of any one, resident here or
elsewhere. Now, what are the facts in the
case? The members of State Central Com
mittee, who made this ratio of representa-
tion-of which we make no complaint, and
consider it entirely fair and equitable-are
mostly residents Of the capital, and are con-
sequently more liable to the charge of ''cen-
trail dictation'' than we, who are a compare
tive stranger here. Again, Marion county,
the seat of the so-called central dictation,"
appointed the number of delegates fixed by
the State Committee, Gust as Tippecanoe did,
and as the editor Of the American thinks
was just and proper while our county and
most Of the other remote counties either con-
felred the power of acting as delegates upon
all who might see proper to attend the Con-
yention, or else appointed number twice or
thrice as large as the number of votes they
would be enttlel to under the ratio adopted
by the committee
"Central dictation," and all other kinds of
"dictation,'' is the very thing we want to see
avoided. Had we in Indiana compact town
or township organization, as in New York
frsm which State asze halicre or friend of the
American hails-then strictly delegated
Convention might be practicable. But we
have not A very small proportion of the De-
mocrats of a county meet at the seat of JUS
tice after few days notice and appoint dele
gates to the 'Ssate Convention. To say that
the delegates so appointed shall have the
exclusive power of disposing OF the vote
of their counties, without regard to the
rights or wishes of the great mass of the vo-
tsrs, is species.of "dictaton' to which the
Democracy of Indiana are not accustomed to
submit
We can assure all who may have looked
with suspicion on the article upon which our
Lafayette cotemporary comments, that our
object was the very reverse Of that imputed
to us. We want every Democrat who may
see proper to do so to come up to the capital
and either act for himself or see that the del
gates from his county truly represent the
wishes of their constituents. We do not want
to see two or three interested politicians dis
pose of the rights of their counties for their
own private benefit. These are our individ-
ual sentiments, for which no one but our
selves is responsible, but which we are salts
fed will meet with warm response from the
Democracy of the State.