Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-03-26
MR.. HAUGHToN,S LETTER.

-
John H. Haughton, Esq, Of Chatham, one of the
State delegates to the Phladelphia Z. N. Convsn-
,;on has written and published letter giving his
account of the action of that body, and urging his
friends to rally to the support OF Fillmore and Dom
eson 1t is our purpose to notice hereafter some OF
The statements made in this letter; but meantime
rre call attention only as have space to day, to
one or two points in it
There is slight difference Of opinion between
the Raleigh Register and Mr.. Haughton as. to the
natform. We present this difference thus, in par
alel columns:
The nominating Convcn. But the effort is made to
ton neither accepted produce the that
es Ge sa q and
essag ali PLATFORMS, efality Of the party DESTROYED
the free from aiin the first place this nation
pledges and snyal platform adopted by the
pher restrictions than Council and crtua endors
which imposed by the led 1y Tie t4nse"t0" is a SUI
Raleigh Registsr.. NJ Haugato"'s Letter.
Which is right-the Register, or Mr.. Haughton?
Again: Mr.. Haughton labors to show that the Eide
or abolition delegates from Pennsylvania, were ad-
mtted to seats in the Conyentioa not account of
their peculiar views on slavery, but because they
had the hes, credentials. Now let US how this
is We find copied into the Wilmington Herald, the
report of the minority of the committee on creden
tails, signed A.. Kennedy, of Maryland; w. 6.
Brownlow, of Tennessee; John A. Baker, of North
Carolina; W. A. Lake, Of Miss; R. X. Call, of Flor.
ida; and W. p Sanity. of Texas. We present, in
double columns, the statement Of Mr.. Haughton on
this subject and the report of this committee, as
follows:
There we're several quest The undersigned members
tons involved in this conesof the Committee ON Crcden-
among ther whether the tails, find themselves
Eide delegates had not for strained differ from the
feited their right members majority IN regard to eg
of the national Convention Utility Of those claiming to
because the State Council obe delegates to this Conven
ed them, had rejected the 18th syvania We regrd this
section Of the national plat Convention having been
form of June last whiet the purpose of
said the Hunsicker had adop nominating candidates for
ted it. On the other hand it President and VICE Pres'-
was contended the of the United States,
Council which appointed theupon the basis OF the con-
Iiunscker delegates sp servative and national ad
constituted. The respecvetion Of slavery embodied in
delegates heard each platform Of June L. 1882
the vote was about to be ia ORGANIZATION. WHICH
KEN it was very difficult to HAS REPUDIA ., OR
sns is Vas Mr. AND
Erastus Brooks, Of New York PIES OF THAT ADJUST
proposed to refer the whole MENT IS ENTITLED TO A
matter back to the committee REPRESENTATIVE IN
on credentials but more forITEIIS CONVENTION In
want of time believe than idersanding that the dele
prevail. being admitted by majority of the
taken resulted in elected under
Ede delegates have been authority Of body known
thus particular in abiding toas the Edie Council of Penn
this matter because it hassylvana which claims to be
been the Of much mis- the American party in Penn
representation it has beenlsylvana ~ after having as
affirmed that it was test was admitted rejected and
vote in the Convention upon epudafed the twelfth section
the slavery question; this of said PLATFORM we are OF
saw, INTERESTINGLY, Is not soopinon that said delegates
The simple inquiry tohave right to seats In the
the credentials If the two SETS Convention.
fdelegates and net their PO- Report Of Committee.
Rticul opinions
Mr.. Raugaton's Letter. ---'
What will Mr.. Haughton say now? Is he right,
and are Messrs. Baker, Brownlow, Lake. and others,
wrong. Is he better qualified to answer for the
committee than Mr.. Baker, from his own State, who
was memberof it?