The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1858-09-16
For the Courier.
Judge Toywnsend's Circular.


Democrats. friends of Judge Townsend. arr
driven 10 defend him against the attacks of nj.
enemies in your county through your paper
! But guerv why ~ e;~rifcan' silence of the
| Statesman in rqlr'i,' 20 the Judicial Conven.
ten for two or II w'okS after the result wa:
known. If he 'hrn rcrn,ae' the Convention al
/ fairly ard t.,.c'st'r CO, ductsc?
In on ar';c'. 'eai., s.Icin 6. Townsend'' IL
the Statesman ri The ID list. The reviewer doe.
great injustice to Judge T., by sophstical ar.
gnments and'false assertions. II is true that
Judge T., in his circular says in substance that
the President OF the Convention announced
| that Judge H. was duly nominated. hut he de-
MES that the nomination was duly made. and
the PLAY upon that word is mere bubble. it,
tended. like everything else emsnatinr from
that source. 10 deceive. Put avoiding crti-
| cism, that sagscious and truthful reviewer goes
at once to the main point of objection, made
nv Mr.. T. 10 The acti N Of the Convention
Now Mr.. reviewer, wherein does Judge Town
serd misronstrue the resolution adopted bv
the Democrats of Van Buren, County in their
county convention-wil Judge n. dare stake
his reputation as a LAWYER. as jurist upon
the assertion that Judge T. places wrong con-
struc'on upon a plain and simple resolution.
in order TO Justify himself in holding on to the
nomination. which some OF his own friends
that were in that Convention, acknowledged
to have been "cheat?' "
What u'as the object Of that resolution p
There must have been some motive for intro
dncing il. What was It? Was it to admit
delegates upon proxies? Surely not, for that
would be absnrd-withont il. delegates upon
proxies could be admitted. That. then was
not the object IF that resolution was ambic-
r0hs which il il not-there is key which
explains it. The person who introduced it,
expressly stated that the object was to cut off
delegates upon proxies, az the reviewer thinks
proper to call them. The .tatemen, Of Judge
T. to this effect is pronounced simply untrue
Now this tallies with other bold and false
assertions in that article-I reiteraie what
Judge T. has said. that il was stated in the Dis
trict Convention that the person Introducing
the resolution, stated that his object in intro
ducing it, was to cut off proxies, and Mr. Shep-
ard admitted it, but stated that he did n~ vote
at all upon the resolution. Don't dodge Mr..
Reviewer, whoever you are, bshind others in
making yonr assortions-give your infor rnants
the Democracy know whether it
was either Of those two gentlemen who threat
ened to withdraw from the convention, unless
those proxies were admitted in the face or that
resolution, or in other words, unles. Fl was
nominated. The reviewer saws il is evident
that that resolution was not intended to cut off
proxies from the fact that DR.. Elhert, the
father-in-lrw Of Judge r. came to the Con-
vention with proxies from Mr.. Sigler and
five other regular delegate who were not able
to attend"
But unfortunately for The reviewer. the
statement is wholesale fabrication-wthout
whit of truth in it. DR.. E. had no proxy
from any one, and 10 proxies were used in tina.
Convention in behalf Of Judge T., from that
county, with the consent OF the nine delegates
IN attendance provided they hal the now
er to admit them. Ten regular delegates were
in attendance from that County, viz: Hopkins
King, Alcorn. Zook. Webster, Goodfellow.
Millineton, Christian, Ebert and Pepit.-
Nine Of those favored Judge r, Mr.. Null
ington only favored Judge H's nomination. -
Mr.. Sigler. Brown, Cassday, Bryan and Alex
ander were absent Sheppard, and Barker pre-
tended to have proxies from Bryan and Alex
md GIRL =, h.
that appointed him-khew nothing of that
resolution gave proxy to Dr. Clark who
did not act in the District Convention, although
the report Of the Chieftain, OF the proceed
ings shows that he. along with Sheppard and
and Barker were reported by the Committee
on Credentials as delegates, which is simply
false, and altered to snit the occasion. Sheph-
ard ami Barker were admitted on motion, Dr.
Clark never! But DR.. Ebert had six proxies.
says H's organ. Will You say Brown or CASH
dav gave bin proxy Alexander, Bryan and
Sigler did not. Who gave those six proxies 70
him? Face the m-,slc Won truthful reviewer !!
Try it again, Sir, vour imagination seems to
be fruitful. But the reviewer SAYS s.that the
tuOoi Vie convention wds NUL one Oh
suffrage. hnt Of memberships Grant il, but
who were to create the members? Who gave
them power to act IN the Convention The
persons whose will they are to reflect, or the
delegates from another county? The DELHI
erative body or Convention could determine
who were entitled to act in the Convention,
but will The reviewer, or any other Of Judge H's
champions, who have sprung forth armed cap
apie, dare assume .hat majority Of dele
gates il that Convention could appoint dele
gate to represent the Democrats Of any county?
Certainly not. That right belongs alone to
the people. Any attempt to appoint delegate
for them is a usurpati on. .a
But this sagacions and truthful reviewer
who evidently speaks by authority. undertake.
to justify the action Of the Convention becans.
J. C. Knapp slipped into the State Convention
as proxy, without objection. Does th
prove anything save that Knapp acted in tn
State Convention without any right and whe,
the question was not .mooted. and no on,
cared? That bubble will not do MIR. Reviw
| er-one wrong does not Justify another. A.
to that Davis county resolution-,he less th
reviewer saws about it the better ale (Judg,
| IT hour tb.t 81, .t,,t:o