Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1859-11-26


We regret tho necessity that cOOstrAins US
10 notice Mr. Loot bourrOw's communication
which appeared IN the Sacramento Union of
Monday last Had be not I've are charitable
enough to believe Enthusiastically niEepre-
sentsd ~, We would have passed It in silence
and BY doing % saved him much future vex-
alton and disappointment We are convinced
that he acted imprudently in penning it, still
more 20 in giving 1t publicity, and he will live
to regret it We take exceptions to the fol-
lowing which is but partially correct, and
does Us injustice:
"The following communication was sub
cation, and by the editor Of that paper re-
fused an insertion"
We respectfully ask Mr.. Loot bourrow IL
the communication published in the Union is
not only part Of the communication he sub
mitted to usI Did he not suppress part oft
The communication he handed to US severely
I'VE thought u1justly and gratuitOusly) as
sailed prominent gentlemen in the Democratic
ranks, by Dame-gentlemen who contributed
largely to the success Of our ticket-State and
cOunty-at the last electiOn-gentlemen who
exhibited their devotion to the party by zeal
ously working for II, in spite Of diSaPpOint!
ment Part Of It Chat part which he or the
Editor Of the Union judiciOusly suppresSed,)
was entirely personal, extensively sO--cOm.
menting. with needless acerbity, on the i'm
aginary motives Of gentlemen whom We re-
apect. We objected to ir, and advised him to
erase the personalities in it. We presume he
did so before sending II to the Union.
The communication he sent to the Union
differs materially from the one he requested us
to publish. Had he handed It to us a. it sp-
peared in the UniOA, Uith the Objectionable
pGrts ttriekea OFT, il would not have been
"refIised an insertion" in the DEMOCRAT. We
would have unbesitatingly published it with
comments. So much on that point.
He says:
IL distinctly said that nomination. in my
belief. amounted to nothing more than re-
communication, and, therefore, when | used
the word nominate, meant to employ term
that, under tho circumstances, was synony-
nous with the word recommend"
We admit it, but he prudcntly neglects to
state that he kept profoundly silent until after
the gentleman he placed in nomination Was
defeated and Capt Rock nominated. We
must DO excused for believing the above an
AiterthOuSht.
Again:
"There is no binding obligation resting on
me- - q member Of the party adhering to itS
legitimate organization, to support the pre-
ference Of Eve individuals, and the proxy Of
another, where no authority was ever given
to thOsS persons and proxy TO form ticket
for the party. Any other ninc individual
Democrats had as much right a. We to make
regular nomination"
Those "Hvc individuals, and tho proxy Of
another" constituted Q majority Of the Dem
Ocratic Central Committee Of FL Dorado Coun-
ty, whose duty 1t was, following precedent,
and acting in accordance with the established
usage Of the Democratic party, . We shall
prove, to make Q nomination. We are sur
priscd at Nr. Loot bOurrOw' . lamentable ignor-
ance Of the usages Of the Democratic party
In 1851, the Democratic Central Committee
nominated Col. Rodgers 70 all the vacancy
caused by the resignation Of Mr.. Hopkins,
who, however, recalled his resignation In
1859, tho Central Committee nominated S.
Garfslde, in place Of John s, Phillips who
died few weeks before the election. In 1854,
the Central Committee nominated Theron
Foster, in place Of Geo. w. Stafford, who de-
clined. In 1856 they nominated Arthur St.
Clair Denver and S. N. johnson for the State
Senate, in place Of P. c. johnson, resigned,
and r. T. Bruce, removed. In 1867 they
nominated D. E. Bucl, in place Of A. II. Rich
ards, who declined In every instance, the
Democracy Of Ell Dorado Endorsed the action
Of tho Central Committee. Mr.. Buel and Mr.
Loot bourow were candidates on the same
ticket, and IL he voted tho ticket and We are
satisfied that he did, he sanctioned their &C.
ton. Never before has their authority to
nominate bocn doubted or questioned. No
convention has ever defined their duties and
powers. They are implied, not expressed
They followed an established custom Of the
party In nominating Capt Rock, which Gus
tom the party has approved time and again.
II they had no right to nominate, they have
no righttO call county convention or trans.
act any other business. How absurd, then,
Is il for Mr. LOofbOurrow, at this late day, In
the lace Of the above we'll known and iudis
putable facts, to assert that the Central Com
mittee had no authority to nominated
We quote further:
1.-THE claims Of Rock are advanced BY fivC
gentlemen Of the Democratic party, and the
proxy Of another, acting in the capacity of /
Central Committees body Of men who OWE
their existence to the act Of . special commit
tee, which committee was created by thu
President Of. the last county convention"
The Central Committee, as Mr.. LOOfbour
row well knows, lowe" their existence to thu
Democratic party Of Fl Dorado county. The
President Of the county convention appOinted
q special committee Of twelve-OnS DeLe0Gt.
from each 1Osonship in hO eOUnty-to seIec
9 Genital CO~mittPe. That committee ~
lectsd twelve gentlemen, and submitted theil
report to the county convention. The mem
bers Of the ccnventioG, representing tho De
mOcracy Of the County, unanimously AdopteG