The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1857-08-08

would bo compelled to retire. thousand certificate
OF election signed by thousand inspectors of election
would not avail them Would 1t not then be the part
wisdom TO prepare for, or guard against whatever
happen? Would it not be the part Of wisdom and pre-
vent Misunderstanding and embarrassment designat
or distinguish in some simple, plain manner the tw
classes of Delegates either Representative or Coun
cior on the tickets themselve? After such precau
ton would be known who must retire. should the Con
Vention Is is not at all improbable, put construction
upon the Enabling Act different from the popular con
struction And thus much time and contention an,
many hesrt-burnings might be saved
The same paper of May 23 previous t.
the election, contained an article entitled
Doings Of the Democratic Nominating Con
vention.' 1t is as follows:
Meeting called to order by j. B. Gilbert, ESQ.
Chose T. l.. Joice President, and J. s. Demmon Sec
rotary.
The names Of Delegates then called, and all an
peared but Mr. Csssitt in 1st Ward, James Holmes il
"a ward, and j. A Lennon in 3d Ward. Said vacancies
nlied py substituting Mullgan for Casst Lochran fol-
| Holmes, and Endy for Lennon
The proceedings of the last meeting was then read
On motion of Mr.. Gilbert the Convention then pro-
ceeded to nominate candidates to the Constitutional Con
| vention By ballot.
On motion of Mr. Lochran it was voted to proceed to
nominate singy.
On motion OIL B. Gilbert, the first ballot to be con-
sdered informal.
On motion of Mr.. Lochran, voted that the first two
nominated shalt be candidates at large
Whereupon, b. b. Meeker, VIM. Lochran, R. Fewer
S. stanchaeld, La schell and c. A. Trttle were nuan
| ho"siy nomhated. j. 3. DEAhoN. Sec'y.
And on the same day is published at the
head of its columns:
DEMOCRATIC NOMINATIONS.
| DELEGATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
Delegates at Large.
B. B. MEEEER. WILLIAM LocHRAs.
District Delegates.
! RICHARD FEWER. SAMUEL. STANcHFIELD
would here state that subsequent to the
nomination and before the election, Mr. Loeb
ran, nominated as delegate at large, declined,
and MIR. Secretary Chase was put in his place.
On the day of election, however, the ticket
came out differently ; and | will here state
what is within my personal knowledge, that
they did come out so differently because
Ju ge Meeker himself went personally into
the Printing Office on the holy Sabbath day,
and superintended the printing of those tick
cts in different manner from what the nom-
ination had been made.
On the sixth of June, subsequent to the
election, but previous to the canvass, the fol-
towing article appeared in the same PAPER:
According to report the Black sharpers m ke
point cf the alleged fact that the democratic ticket
printed in solido, and without any of
candidates in words either Council Representative
Delegates and thereupon base claim for certificates
to Murphy and Putnam who were distinguished on the
printed ballots of the Republicans as Delegates at
Large" Wel there is no call here for waste of ink
or OF BREATH The entire matter is resolved into uues-
ton Of intent and understandings and when we arrive
at the common intent and general understanding in the
premises we have the only solution And in the outset
1t may be asserted and very easily proved that the
names of Judge Meeker and c. L. Chase were the
day before the election, at the head of the columns
the ST. Anthony Express, under the appeation printed
in legibe characters of Delegates at Large' This of
itself meets the objection raised of want of an under
stood and received distinction in the public mind as to
which were to be considered Council and which. Renre
! sentative Delegates.
And on the 18th day of June subsequent
ly to the canvass there appeared in the same
paper the following article:
Where is Judge Meeker? Why is he not here milling
| his own chestnuts out of the fre?"
| Now, Mr.. President, as I said before, not
only did the law require the designation to be
made upon the tickets between the two clas-
! ses OF delegates, but also the democratic
| party fthat district knew that it was so re-
quired made their nominations in that way,
published them in that way, by their own
| showing, on the Saturday previous to the
Monday on which the election took place :;
and that subsequently to the election they
undertook to offer an argument that because
they so published them, the voters would be
presumed to have understood that they
were voting for Meeker and Chase as dele
gates at large, and the others from the repre-
sentative district; and that the board of G an
vassers were bound to take that as evidence.
in opposition to the evidence of the tickets
which the voters had cast.
Again, the inquiry in regard to the where
abouts of Judge Meeker, shows three things:
In the first place, that they understood that
there were some chesnuts in the fire and liza.
BILE to be burned; second, that these ches-
nuts belonged particularly to Judge Meeker:
and n the third place, charging him with not
being there to attend to them-or in other
words charging Judge Meeker with having
produced the state of the case under which
they were laboring; that there was trouble
and that he had brought it about
Now, propose to say word in regard
to what is alleged as the inconsistency of this
Convention in this matter. 1t is asserted
that while the distinction between the two
classes of delegates had been recognized bv
someboey-and it is charged upon the Con-
vcntion-that the Convention themselves
have disregarded that distinction in other
cases and the case of the gentleman from
the 1lth council district (Mr. Sheldon) is
referred to as one instance. In that case.
Mr.. President, it appears by the evidence
before this Convention that Mr.. Sheldon &C.
tually received in the council district for
which he was candidate, three votes more
than K. +. Russell (; that every one of those
votes contained the distinction, but that the
judges of election, in making the returns to
the Register Of deeds in three precincts.
failed to preserve that distinction, and that
consequently the canvassing board. being
bonnd by law to recognize and preserve that
distinction, could not 60 behind the returns,
anil they returned Mr.. Russell as duly elect
ed to this Convention; that this Convention
having the power to 90 behind the certificate,
Mr.. Russell refusing to appear here, and MIR.
Sheldon claiming the seat, the Convention
determined that he having received the
greatest number of votes cast for that par
ticular office, was entitled to a seat in this
Convention.
1t has also been asserted that % members
OF this Convention sitting in this body were
voted for in the same manner as we're the
democrats in the third Council district. Mr..
President, this Convention knows, of course.
nothing about that matter, but have simply
to say that in each of the districts in which
that thing occurred both tickets were in the
same form, both parties making mistake, as
l understand it, in the printing of their tick
cts, and consequently one had no preference
over the other, and that the Register of
Deeds in these counties did perfectly right in
giving the certificates to those having the
highest number of votes
The same principle will apply to the two
seats that are said to be Illegally held by
delegates from the Sth Council district. Not
only in that district was it necessary to make
the distinction because there were two clas-
ses OF delegates to be elected, but also be-
cause the two Councillor delegates were t,
be elected in different districts from the diff
erent representative delegates. The counties
of Houston and Mower being themselves
separated by the county of Fillmore. consti- |
tuting one Of the subdivisions of the eighth
Council district, are entitled to one Councillor
while the county of Houston is entitled to
two representatives, and the county of Now.
er one. Consequently under the Enabling
Act the county of Houston would be entitled
to elect four delegates, and the county of
Nower entitled to elect two delegates anil |
under the Territorial Act the Council dis
trct of Houston and Mower together was
entitled to elect two delegates. It is alleged |
that two delegates, sitting in this Convention
received le S number of votes than two 9th.
ers to whom certificates of election were re-
frlS n Rut hu fbo roDnrf of fbo