The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-04-20
tF,- ~ Erfteru Ci1-io-
Court House Question.
~ n

No. IL.
Ms. EptroR to entering upon
the discussion Of the latter part Of the
subject. 1.-THE benefits and injuries Of the
removal Of the Court House, as proposed,
we must pay our respects to some Of our
American and Democratic friends who
are urging objections to the anti-remoyal
party. both ON account Of the previous
course Of some Of the members Of that
party and the means they are now adopt
ing to accomplish their objects.
The Americans say to Us that they had
q candidate in the field two years ago
when the western Democrats repudiated
the nominee of the party-who was OPP
posed to the removal. and openly declared
himself to that effect. "Why" say they,
did you not at that time support him.
and thus kill this contemplated measure,'
All that many Of u' Of the East ask is.
that we shall be heard before being con
demned.
Il Is well remembered by those who
we're conversant with the movements of
the parties Of that day, that the American
candidate announced himself rs such in
opposition To the Democratic nominee.
and the Democratic party Of the East
would. therefore, have been placed in a
false position by arraying themselves in
his support, even after their nominee had
declined running. For. had they wheel
I e 1,ss 1,4ff ion. Il
denly. (it matters not on what account,)
it would have been very justly suspected,
at least. that they had not given to their
candidate that moral support which he
| had right to expect from them. And
again. our constitution and laws are based
upon the principle that the people are
sovereign, and that they should be fully
represented in those for whom they cast
their suffrage. In the case above named,
they would not have been correctly rep
resented. except so far as the removal
Of the Court House was concerned. In
other respects he was our avowed oppo-
nent Under those circumstances we did
not think that we would be iustitable in
casting our votes for him while he retain
ed hi, declared opposition to the Demo
cratic party. After agitating the subject
amongst ourselves. and agreeing upon the
proper course to be pursued. three Of us
went 10 the American candidate and 9TH
er prominent members Of the party, and
/ proposed that We cease all political strife.
and that we form a party opposed to the
removal of the Court House-that their
/ candidate should decline running as
representative Of the peculiar views Of the
American party, and, with all other aspi-
rants Of the new party, submit his claims
for nomination. After consultation with
| his political friends. he and they declined
our proposition. although they were fore
warned that the Democratic party Of the
/ E,st would not come 10 his support while
i running as an American candidate. in OPP
/ position to the Democratic party. Upon
the acquiescence Of the American candi-
/ date. and Of his friend, we based our only
dopes Of success knowing that lac was in
the field. no candidate who might be pre-
sented would receive any support from
that party. and that our party would not
/ give him their votes while he maintained
his opposition to n. Thus all effort ceas-
/ ed but many refused to cast their votes
for either Of the candidates.
We have now proven conclusively, we
think, that many Of our Democratic
friends can show a clear record on this
subject, they having refused to unite with
/ their political party, not for want Of de-
sire to cooperate with them, hut from a
! firm conviction that il would result in the
strengthening Of the removal party. and
thus ultimately entailine lasting injury
upon the county. And, then, there are
those that refuse to affiliate with the anti
removal party because one Of its strongest
friends and supporters has long been a
political opponent with whom they have
had many hard contests in former strug-
giles for place and power. Others who
have become personally embittered against
those who have invested their money in
property at the present county site. know
ing that, should it be- removed their pro
perty would be rendered almost value
less, advocate removal with the avowed
design Of bringing pccuniary loss upon
those VINO have been 50 unfortunate as to
incur their displeasure. And there are
those that are in favor Of removal from pure
ly selfish motives, expecting to make theiI
fortune by il, at the expense of public
good and private enterprise. 70 those
who are influenced by such motives in
their action on this subject, we would
most solemnly appeal, and would show tC
them the great sin Of casting from them
80 lightly the blessings OF our Creator
who has 80 proiuscly bestowed them upon
our favored land; and for what only Il
crafty the baser passions Of our natures
And We would also represent to them tn,
obligation they are under as patriots t,
love their country and protect her inter
ests to the best of their abilities.
Mr.. Editor, We suppose every family ha
its peculiar troubles. II would seem tina
, the anti-removal party is not to be an ex
, ccption to the general rule. One Of on
, personal friends, who j. also a member o
, the party, says that although he has no
. been sold to Tallahala, yet he may b.
! driven there This remark was mad
! when opposing the submission Of the issu,
Of removal or no removal to the voters O
the county at the ensuing election. W
= think that the party determined, for goo'
+ and sufficient reason, to make the issue a
|, once. The principal argument relic
upon in opposition to this course, is tina
I. Il would not be a fair test-that persona
{ influence ofthe opposing candidates woul
D be brought to bear. In answer, we woul
only ask, would not the personal Unfit
! ence. not only Of the candidates, but &
= all others on either side Of the question
be brought 10 bear as efFectually when IN
question was finally submitted to the pc,
= plcr This being undeniably the fact, tn
: voters Of the county would be as comp
I A.. \. 4. a