The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-03-30
Minnesota Delegation to Charleston

We notice that various journals in the
Eastern States, opposed to the nomination
of Judge DOUGLAS at Charleston, assert that
the Minnesota delegation is not united in
his support. These journals do not deny
that the voice of the State has been ex>
pressed with remarkable unanimity, in SUPP
port of the nomination Of Judge D., nor
that the delegates to Charleston were voted
for, and understood to be, DOUGLAS men in
our State Convention. They, however, pub
llsh the statement of the detection of a por.
ton of the delegation, in manner impugn.
ing the political honor and personal integ-
rity of the whole, especially when it is
considered that the delegates reputed faith
less are not named. The Cincinnati En-
quirer's correspondent at Washington, says
that I" certain Senators claim that dele
gates from Minnesota will vote against
DOUGLAS at Charleston, " because it has
been made recently TO the interests of dele
gates to do this" and the Washington
Star, the hand organ of the Administration,
says:
To continue: we have to say that six of the
thirteen delegates from Indiana, a majority of
the Minnesota and Massachusetts, delegations,
more than third of the delegations from
Maine and Connecticut, and the Rhode Island
delegation, are, per- Sc, anti-Douglas men; and
therefore may not be expected to enter upon
the task of forcing his nomination upon the
South, chalked out for them by his (Mr. D.'s)
newspaper writers.
We do not believe these statements, and
we merely notice them at this time, to give
our reasons for such disbelief. Every one
of the gentlemen composing the Minnesota
delegation, publicly pledged himself, prior
to his election by the State Convention, as
a Delegate to Charleston, to labor consist
emily, faithfully and zealously for DOUGLAS
nomination. DOUGLAS was declared the
choice of the Convention by unanimous
vote, and resolutions of instruction, as to
the action of the Delegates at Charleston,
binding on every honest and honorable man,
who accepted trust at the hands of the
Convention, were also unanimously carried.
Six of the eight Delegates to Charleston
allotted to Minnesota, are now in the State,
and are outspoken and Jealous in their ad-
vocacy of Judge DOUGLAS nomination. We
refer to Gov. GoRMAN, of st. Paul /; Gov.
S1BLBY, of Mendoza Hon. J. T. RossER,
Of Mankato Hon. A. j. EDaERToN, of
Mantorville Hon. w. w. PHELPS, of Red
Wing /; and Hon. JAMES NJ. CAvANAUaH,
of Chatfeld. These gentlemen make no
secret of the way they intend to vote at
Charleston and for the benefit of the
Washington Star, and certain Senator's -
we can say with confidence that they cannot
be bought. The two absent Delegates are
Hon. G.. L. BECKER and Major FR1DLEY,
both of whom, prior to their departure from
st. Paul, were enthusiastic supporters Of
DOUGLAS. And we have heard nothing
since they left the State, to lead us to be-
lieve they have changed their sentiments.
To suppose that the delegates to Charles
ton from this State will repudiate their
pledges, defy their instructions, and misrep-
resent the Democracy of the State in the
National Convention, is simply an indirect
method of stigmatizing them as scoundrels
OF more than ordinary boldness. We there
fore, repudiate the charge made by the east
ern anti Douglas press, as to the position OF
the Minnesota delegation at Charleston.
On trial, they will be found representing
the wishes of the Democracy of the State
by voting as unit for Judge DOUGLAS
nomination.