Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-10-09
Hon. Charles J. Albright.

We consider the election Of this gentle
man beyond doubt if he can but have fair
show in this county. We have the best
authority for saying that four-ifths of the
Americans in this county will vote for him,
notwithstanding the effort made to entice
away votes from him by the nomination OF
DAVENPORT. We repeat that Mr. DAvEN-
PORT was put upon the track for the sole
purpose Of weakening ALBRIGHT and to
strengthen LAWRENCE. No one is verdant
enough to suppose that he DAVENPORT
can be elected. He has no constituency
in tie District outside of Belmont County.
The Convention that nomi nated him was
made up OF Belmont County men, alone, and
numbers of those were opposed to making
any nomination. Then why should the
nomination o. DAVENPORT have any weight
with Americans! He IS not tie regular
nom:nse Of .tdt party!
But again, what objection is nude to Mr.,
ALsRIe AT's course in Congress! They can
bring nothing objectionable against him.
Some time since the Republicans were
charged with being opposed tc all compro.
mises, and voting for the Topeka Constitu-
iion, which was mPrscticable, and of such
nature that The opposite party could NOT
vote for it. IN this state of affairs, Mr..
Dunn, OF Indiana offered " hat is now know n
as "DunL's Kansas Bill" which was really
a compromise. Our Representative voted
for that bill, and for this offer OF compro-
Mise he is cried down by the very individ-
uals who mathematical him for being op-
posed to compromises. Now let US see
what Dunn's Bill proposed 1t proposes
l. To wipe out the Border-Rufiian legis-
Iation in Kansas by which the term of the
bogus "Counr ii'' "as protracied till Jan. l.,
1858;
2. To dismiss and restore to private life
all the officers and appointees of that bogus
Legislature, SO soon as a new Legislature
should be ready TO fill their places;
3. To set free the Free-State prisoners;
4. To annul the most obnoxious OF the
Border-Rutian laws;
5. To secure homesteats in Kansas to
actual settlers, whether native-born or not;
6. To prohibit the entrance of another
slave into Kanaas;
but, as the Official eDsus shows that
there were l92 slaves in Kansas a year and
more ego, Mr. Dunn's Bill continues:
"Pr0sidee, hosesoer, That any person law
| fully held to service in either of said Terri
tories shall not be discharged from such SER
vice by reason of such repeal and revival of
said eighth section, if such person shall be
permanently removed from such Territory
or Territories prior to the LIST day of JAM
uary. 1858; and any child or children born
in either of said Territories. of any female
lawfully held to service, if in like manner
removed without said Territories before
the expiration OF thai date, shall not be, by
reason OF anything in this act emancipated
from any service it might have owed had
this act never passed: And prov,ded further,
That any person lawfully held 10 service
IN any Other State or Territory of the United
States, and escaping into either the Terri
tory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be re.
claimed and removed to the person or place
where such service is due, under any law of
The United States which shall be in force
upon the subject"
These last promises, taken alone, would
Of course be obnoxious to Re publicans, and
not solitary one Of them would have voted
for them. But tuken as they were, in con-
nection with the prov isions before enumer-
ated; in the nature Ct Il proviso, they were
voted for by Republican members. Here
.hen we have Mr.. ALBRIGHT assai.ed for
doing just what, a few days earlier, he was
assailed for not doing: showing willingness
to compromise en- Kansas affairs.
This is plain exposition of the situation
of the case. Can any one find fault with
Mr.. ALBRIGHT, who is cognizant of all the
facts! Most certainly not!