The Trinity journal., 1856-09-20
Not Correct.

In an article in which no inconsiderabe
degree of opposition to Mr.. Fillmore is ex.
hibited, the San Francisco Chronicle says OF
Mr.. Fillmore's administration
4" His administration owed its respectability to
the great abilities and craftsmanship OF Mr.. ed
ster His intellect, his decision of character, his
power. supplied thought, mind, action. states
manship, which did not exist in the President
For this, Fillmore defeated him for the nomlna-
tion for President, in defiance Of his previous
pledges not to be a candidate. That defeat
killed Webster, or in other words, Fillmore thus
killed him.
Unless we are greatly mistaken, the
above statement is not sustained by the his
tory of those times. Mr.. Webster was not
defeated by Mr.. Fillmore or by his friends,
but Mr.. Webster's friends did defeat Mr..
FilImore's nomination The Wings Of the
South preferred Mr. Fillmore to all others,
and determined to vote for him, notwith-
standing his avowed desire not to be a can
didate. In the Convention, on the first bal
lot, one hundred and thirty-three votes were
cast for Mr. Fillmore one hundred and
thirty-one for Gen Scott, and twenty-ninc
for Mr.. Webster. For the first day the
vote changed but very little. After nu-
merous ballotings, as we were informed by
one who was there, it was suggested that
either Fillmore or Webster should be with.
drawn They were telegraphed Mr. Fill
more replied that his friends had his permis
sion to withdraw his name in favor of Mr.
Webster whenever they thought proper
Mr.. Webster withheld ns assent to the with
drawal of his narle, and his friends continued
to vote for him until the 6fty-third ballot
They could at any time after the first ballot
have nominated Mr. Fillmore 1t may be
replied that the friends of Mr.. Fillmore
cGuld have nominated Mr.. Webster, pro
vided one hundred and twenty OF them woulC
have voted for him in a body.
The matter was carefully canvassed by
the Southern delegates, and they found thai
they could only carry one hundred and tel
to fourteen of their delegates from Mr.. Fill
more to Mr. Webster A portion of th'
remaining delegates had been instructed tt
vote for Mr.. Fillmore, but personally pre-
fcrrcd Gen. Scott, and, with a number O
others, making some twenty delegates
ayowed their determination to vote for Scot
the moment Fillmore was withdrawn. Mos
of these delegates finally voted for Scott
which secured his nomination.
Finding themselves thus situated, the
leading friends Of Mr.. Fillmore proposed tC
the friends of Mr. Webster, that if they
could manage to cross Mason Il DiXonE
line with forty votes for Mr.. Webster, they
could and would nominate him. But sc
welded were the delegates from the free
| States to Scott, that the friends of Webster
never could succeed in casting for him ovel
thirty votes. Could they have mustered fol
him forty votes from the Free States, th'
} Fillmore delegates from the slave State
would have given the nomination to Wei
s stcr, as one hundred and fourteen of thcr
S preferred him to Scott Under this stat
y of facts, we think it unjust, as well as yer
unfair, to charge that Mr.. Fillmore delicate
f the nomination of Mr. Webster, or was IL
cause Of his death. The history OF thu
Convention reverses the position OF the pa
ties, and refutcs the statement OF the Chf0
icic
y The above refutation of the ChrOn'f1
o by the Union is pointed, brief and clear.