Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-03-13
TO the Dc,nocrn,Ic Party of .iIbemarIe.

ton. From the limited number Of delegate
appointed, the conclusion might be drawn tha
the meeting was intended not to express TN
to suppress the voice Of the people Thos
who controlled that meeting, were opposed. il
the recent State Convention to, any expression
OF preference on the part Of that body i'll i;Ivo
oil 9ny, candidate for the Presidency, and TIL
avowed reason Of opposition to such move
ncnt was that il violated the imnpmoria
usages OF the party. IpropoSe to try The az
tlon Of the late meeting hy the test oi usag
in A!bemarle. go back TO lsj2 tav
been unable to lay my hands on the proceed
lnsS OF the meeting held in that year, but
ind that Albemarle was represented By iUrtl
delegates in the District Convention 10 appuin
delegates to Baltimore, and from that FACT
conclude that the delegation appointed by tn
meeting was large one or unlimited
On the 18th Of September, 1854, mectin;
was held to send delegates to the Staunto,
! Convention.
| Ten delegates were appointed from cac!
macisterial district, one hundred in all, and
resolution adopted authorizing any Democratic
voter from the county to act a> . delegate
! On tnc 1th ri April, 1876, meeting was
held TO appoint delegates to the District Con
ventioa called to Scnd delegates to Cincinnati
! Ten delegates were appointed from each E,agl>
tcriai-tQb in ail--and all other Democrats i!
the comfy were authorized 10 act as delegates
| On the ltlI day Of Uc;1icr 1858. u llcctin,
was held TO srud delegates Ia the Convention
| 10 nominate State officers. I'm motion nf Col
Richard &. Crank. four delegates were appoint
cd from cach mugis:erial district a ,uo,inn wa,
submitted HI myself to allow any Democrat
from the county 10 act aS q delegate. and wa.
withdrawn when opposed ty Colonel Randolph
anti Col. Crank-hul 30 outraged WAS the party
by the limited number of the delegation (ln.
and so fearful that some uniilirIcSS had bcc
perpetratcd, however mniutrntinnal, that IL sub
scqucnt meeting was held at November court
hy which GO additional delegates were appoint
cd-making lnh in Nil.
At March court. 1874. l rIleriin. MAS held t.
appoint delegates To- Il District Convention, lo
nominate candidate iUr Congress- wit;I
drew from that meeting Il say il wi,h n" dis
position IN rc'npcn Il past CONTROVERSY ior rca
. sons which i; IS nom unnecessary TO RECOUNT
bnt Dr tnnl inccting 90 delegates wer,: ~;
i"int"d
On ilon.y i;rlI ri frEr,mry. Il meeting
was held TO appoint tl"iv.atcs % the la;c State
Convention. IL; that n"cl.I;; i1n delegates
were appointed, s"icc;ed with reference To the
relative Democratic strength il, the districts
and any Democrat il, the c''ln;y authorized tr
act rs "A delegate
Such, fellow citiAru>. has htrn the action ci
the Democratic party II .iibcInare from lS52
down IL the present tine. and have no doub,
that It's action prior t, that date with which
I,,,:i:.r ,,E v;,,;l,r J., ,t,
Now, for the first time the rlirnher Of dele
gates nave hrcn reduced tllrce.lourliis, and the
doors Of Inc Convention closed, Us far Is the
action II that nmcl;ng could CLOSE lhcir, 10
every llclnur:at in Tie rnnntv, except twrni;.
five and tie Chairman and Secretaries Of trc
meeting.
have Il few rla!i practical questions To a,k
in relation 70 lh! matter. Why were one nun
dred delegates appointed To attend Il Cun,e;i-
iion nj distant point. called for mere tariy y
oreanizatiom, and, one single month inter
ycnng. twenty five appointed to attend Il Con.
vention Ut our OWL ,i0orS. called for the very
purpose Of selecting mri IL represent an'i 'S'
press. in National Convention, the will nt
the people: Why We're not Hon. Suction +.
Lcake, W. +. Gordon, Ir.. Prof. j. T. Hob
c"rnhc, William +. t;uociI, Thomas l.. Farsh.
John J. Pace, K. W. y. Noland. W. ".
Tebbs NJ C., Elliot, William Rnles. j. Fl.
Briggs. T. y. Trice, VIM ". Minor, f II.
Iianm. John Irevillian. John 3. Spccc. Vim.
C. BarksdaIc. James NJ Bib. Vim. VI. kehlin
ger, Thomas j. Wcrtcnbakcr, j. i. Pcytun.
\. j. Brown, y. H. MaSSic. S. w Ficklin, H.
T. ". Duke. DR.. +. 5. II. Wise, ". y. Perry,
Thomas A. Yates, Alfred Benson. DR.. ". ".
Hammer, $ +. Sampson. f. II. llucHstcp, Me
riwrther Anderson. H. W. Taylor, John foole
Edwin Thurman, Vim. H. Harris DR.. Horace
Goodman. j. II. Yates. Edward Coles. Jesse
l.. FRY. Thomas F. Wincii"ld, DR.. George
". Richards, Vim. II Garland. W. W. Pace"
David Clements, Dr Charles Wingtield, u. IT,
I.uptnn, JOHN Fray, Jr., Dr.. ". 6. Rogers DR..
rhco. y, .i;ciric, John Z. Farley. Wm. Silnms
Win. II. Wund, James Wavand George =.
Cattcrtpn, Henry b. Shilctt, James F. Chap
man. DR.. james THORNLEY,. Samuel G. White,
Austin G.. Shelton. VIM u. Grayson Goodrich
Garland, Hugh Harris, DR.. y. Monterro, John
y. Mann. Dr. George ". Martini Jerry White,
l:arrrit White. Capt - Sutherland, Rich
ard Durr"tt. ". e. Nicholas. Vim. W. Brown,
,;corgr y. Coleman, Thns Coles, joel Wheel
or. joEn d. liarrs. John - Lewis, VIM. ".
Wade. .Jalucs +. Marshall William l.. Grad
dock. Vim l.. Sncc'l. y. Can't, Henry CAN'T,
burlington Frctweli. VIM V. Alexander. y,
j. Craren, VIA. NJ. Eerkclcy, a, competent f.
represent llhc;lia-Ie in district convention at
Charlottesville. HS they were To represent al
hcmarie in It Stale i'rilv. rii"n at Richmond:
WHY is any Democratic voter excluded from
I participation IN 4 body in wilicn iic has
L r;0ht 10 BIZ heard. and which is called for
he very purpose of rejecting his wishes:
lhrSc arc pertinent rnIuirieS, and leave Ii
10 vour own perception and sense Of Justice Il
answer them. 4 make no complaint That my
name is omitted from the list Of the favored
icw, although it has subjected me 10 taunt
and creates the impression abroad that have
mi sufficient standing 1t home to be ap
portr'l Il delegate to y District Convention
SIci, NAV have l,een the opinion of those who
composed that urcine. nut such feel conli
dent is irnt the Judgment of the Democracy
Of Aibcmarla.
ain ~, afraid To compare my unscll
ish, loyal and honest devotion to the prlnci'
pies and organization al thc Democratic par
" with that Hf any ,nau upon that delegation.
a,n not afraid and say it III no spirit ol sell
autlalion, tu compare my services IN the cause
of the Democratic party If .Nbcnarlc wit
lluSc If any man upon that delegation.
Siucr my return to my native county, IT
1850, never has the banner Of Democracy
foatcd 10 the breeze That | have not beer
found battling meath its folds. AZ county
cIcclor in 1852. As Il candidate by yoIll
unanimous and nr,Sought nomination ioi
the House of Delegates in 1888, as Distric
Elcctor IN lSI:i, rs Assistant Eector in lS36
As 4 candidate, by Il like unsOught and unani
NOUS nomination for thr Senate in 1S5l. ant
rs District Elcctor III 1862 | have testified
before vnrl,in every portion fthc cnunty.my dc
cotton to our cat,<can my fidelity to our prlnci
ylcs. stood publicly pledged by my own decia
ration made in the recent Democratic Conven
toni in the hearing of some ofthe participants II
that meeting, to support the nominee OF th'
Charleston Convention.
Why, then. was |, and, with me, 50 many o
yourselves, excluded from n participation in tin
District Convention 1t remains for others Il
answer the question:.
Fellow.citizens, respectfully suggest to yo'
to hold meetings in Your several Districts nnc