The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-09-11
THE DOUGLAS CONVENTION.

Speeches were made before the convention, aft.
ter the business was dispatched, by DIR Fremont OF
Pasquotank, j. T. Rosser, of Minnesota, Dr. Keen,
H w. Miller, and Mr. Howerton of Va.
Dr. Fremont delivered sophomorical address
cut and dried for the OCCASION prefusey interlar-
ded with hacknied tropes- and rounded periods
which were somewhat stale before the DAYS of 4th
July Orations. After every attempt by the au-
dience to drown his tinkling notes, without sue
cess, we learn he vas waited on by friend and
requested to cease his harangue. Mr.. Rosser was
next called on and spoke at some length, giving
history of the famous heresy, Squatter Sove-
reigEty, and spoke in high terms of the North
western Democracy. Mr. Rosser said in the course
of his remarks that he was here by accident and
did net anticipate making speech.
After the conclusion of, Mr. Resser's speech, DR.
Keen, of Rockingham, was called on, a0d made a
few remarks. The burden of their song, was VIM.
L. Yancey. No charges were preferred against
Breckenridge and Lane, but we suppose Mr. Yam
cey's ears burned if there is anything in the old
saying.
Mr. Miller next appeared upon the stand and
spoke about one hour. We expected when he
arose, that he would be able to defend his squat
ter doctrine, knowing him to be lawyer Of dis
tinction, and an able man, but to our surprise he
commenced on Yancey and denounced him as an
equal with Seward, a man who was plotting against
the country and the Union. And characterized
him as the leader of John G. Breckenridge and
the seeding party.
Mr. Miller spoke of the speech Of Mr. Buchan-
an, delivered in Washington city, in the harshest
terms, and said it was degrading for a man &C.
cupying such a position to be making stump
speeches We would like to ask Mr. Miller what
he thinks Of the stump speeches made by Mr. Doug.
tas in all the States, in which he denounees Mr.
Breckenridge aud his friends in the most mallg-
-. n II
not syllable against calls the name of
John Bell the opposition candidate.
If had not been aware that Mr. Miller was
making speech for Mr. Douglas, we would have
looked upon it as a speech for both tickets. Says
he "look to the noble State of Kentucky the gal
liant Coombs beats the Breckenridge candidate
10000 votes" Does Mr. Miller look to the re-
suit of the Kentucky election as a triumph for
Mr. Douglas? We know that the Bell and Ever
EFT and the Douglas men good terms and a
triumph for is triumph for the other, but we
must confess surprise at the boastng and forci
bic manner in which Mr. Miller spoke of the tri-
umph in Kentucky.
This gentleman then spoke of the defeat Of the
regular nominee in Arkansas by Rector the in
dependent candidate and left the impression on
those unacquainted with the facts, that this was
Douglas triumph in Arkansas Dir Miller ought
to know that Rector was an ayowed advocate of
Breckenridge and Lane, and that no difference ex-
listed in that State between the candidates for
Governor.
Mr. Howerton, of Virginia, next opened with a
great onslaught on the Hon. R. NJ. Z. Hunter, Of
Va, and asserted that Mr. Hunter was the "hirelng
of corrupt administration"
We can inform Mr. Howerton when he comes to
this State to denounce MIR Hunter and dictate to
our Democracy, he will meet with such response
as he would meet with in Virginia, where MIR
Ha9tfekE il kn9y f ess th" """"e delight "