Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-12-23

Mr.. McRae and the Democratic Convention of
1852 on the Land Question. A
Asa matter of Justice to Mr.. McIsae we publish
the following correspondence > 81
Mr.. McRae says the Standard has "inadver-
tently" done him injustice in making him speak OF
the action of the Convention on that occasion,
whereas, he spoke, he says, Of the Caucus onky We
set forth in our article that portion of Mr. McRaes
letter relating to the matter, and we do so again.
that the public may have all the facts before them
Mr.. McRae says in his letter to Mr.. Dancy:
Eat a caucus of the democratic party which sat in
Convention at Raleigh in May 1852, called their at
tention the Just and inqutous system OF squan-
dering THE PUBLIC LANDS, which was robbmg North
Carolina of her interest theren-which was IN utter
violation of the principles regularly set toftn 10 the
national Conventions of the party, and pointed out
the prospect of speedy and entire loss to North
Carolina of this valuable Inheritance That Demo
cratic Convention in that caucus then rejected the
resolution this subject reported by the COMMITTEE
(which was in substance from the Baltimore plat
form-and res0lOed that In view OF tne se..eu POI,
lev Of donations-and the impossbility OF MAINTAIN
ing the old democratic doctrine-st soas aHoget"er
ri0ht that fair distribution of this common prop
erty should be had among all the States"
Mr. McRae emphatcaly declares that that De-
aocratic Conrention in that Caucus then rejected,
&C. The Convention, then, was in Caucus, framing
q nlatform to be reported and acted upon next day.
We took it for granted that the committee having
the matter in charge was bound by the action of the
Convention in Caucus and that if any such resolu-
ton as that spoken of by Mr.. McRae was adopted,
it would have been reported next day in open Con-
vention. No such resolution was reported, and the
inference, therefore clear that no such resolu.
ton was adopted in Caucus. Hence we referred to
the Convention and the Caucus substantially one
and the same body.
Now what are the facts? Mr.. McRae says that
Democratic Convention, in that Caucus" rejected
the resolution on this subject reported by the COM
mittee Mr.. Cantwell says by general consent the
resolution was withdrawn and referred for the pur
pose of striking out the latter clause; that no vote
was had, and of course no rejection" could have
taken place. But Mr.. McRae goes further, and says
"that Convention in that Caucus" acted not only
negatively in rejecting the resolution reported by
the committee but atirmatirezy in "resolcing that
in view of the settled policy of Donations and the
impossbli:y of maintaining the old Democratic doc
trine, 1t oas altogether right that fair dstribu-
ton Of this common property shoutd be hat among
all the States" This is Mr.. McRae's amendment,
word for word, schieh he says aoas adopted. Mr..
Shepard says Mr. McRae offered his views "by way
of amendment" and that his " amendment was sub
stantially adopted" How? By the Conventions
refraining from expressing "any opposition to the
distribution of the public lands, in the North
ern Democracy persisted in squandering them
That is, the Convention in that Caucus" "sub-
stantially adopte an amendment by refraining from
expressing an opinion! But Mr.. Shepard says af.
forwards in his letter, addressing Mr.. McRae, you
soithdre,o your amendment" &C. Mr.. Cantvell says,
81 do not rocollect the passage of any amendment
proposed by you, do think the substitute you
offered could hare passed." Mr.. McRae declares that
not only did I" that Convention in that Caucus
jsct the resolution reported by the committee, but
it adopted his substitute-his amendment, which he
sets forth in so many words; and in this he is not
sustained by either Mr. Shepard or Mr.. Cantweil.
Mr.. Cantwel gives it as his opinion that no such
amendment as that referred to by Mr.. McRae "eouM
hare passed " and Mr.. Shepard is of the opinion that
Mr. McRae's views we're substantially adopted" by
the silence of that Convention in that Caucus"
by the silence of the Convention itself on the SUBJ
iect of distribution.
Judge Saunders states that he has too indistinct
recollection of the proceedings of the Convention to
be willing to trust his memory as to what took place
on this subject. Mr.. McRae refers to Judge Saun-
ders' letter, aid places it at our disposal, and we
have thought it best to publish it with the others.
Certainly we have no disposition to do Mr.. McRae
injustice; nor do we believe him capable of delibcr-
atey mis-stating disappearing facts. We only
maintain that he is mistaken-radically mistaken in
his recollection of what took place the occasion.
If the Caucus adopted the resolution he refers to-if
it "resolved" as he says it resolved" how did it
happen that the committee resolutions suppressed,
kspt back bis resozution? By what authority did
they thus suppress it? And if they had done so,
would not Mr.. McRae himself, in open Convention
next day, have called attention to the fact. and in
sisted on his resolution? This view of the NATTER
it seems to US, is of itself conclusive. Be rs
The correspondence is as follows: IS
RALEIGH December 18th, 1857.
Messrs. Holden d Wilson:
GENTLEMEN: In your paper Of date the 10th. un-
der the caption of" Mistake Corrected" you make
up an issue of fact with me upon that part OF my
letter to Mr. Dancy upon the action Of The caucus
of the Democratic Convention of 1852 upon the res
olution with reference to the public lands. have
no reason to suppose that you would intentionally
seek to place inc in wrong position upon matter
of fact, and therefore regard it as an snddoertence
that you make me speak of the action OF the Con-
vention whereas spoke of the action of the caucus
only. l have addressed enquiries to Judge Saun-
ders, who was chairman of the committee, to Mr..
James B. Shepard who did me the honor to fill the
chair for me, and to Mr.. Cantwell, who was a MEM
Der of the committee on that occasion.
send you the enclosed replies from two of these
gentlemen, which / think corroborate substantially
what have stated-that that representative body of
the Democratic party of this State were in favor of
equal distribution of the public lands among all the
States in view of the system of squandering carried
on with regard to them.