The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1860-04-11
The Lancaster Meeting

Two or three weeks since, we published
the following item:
A DEAD FAILURE-A meeting, as we
learn from the Ledger, favorable TO sending
delegates to the Columbia Contention, was
TO have been held in Lancaster on Saturday
Sd inst, but the movement proved Il com.
plete failure. Hear what the Ledger says
$50 far, no demonstration of this kind
has been made in Lancaster, and it is not
likely nov that there will be. 1t has been
said that majority of the people of this
District are opposed to the State taking
part in Presidential Nominating Convcn-
tons, and the result of the effort made
here four years ago 10 have the District
represented IN the State Convention, favors
this belief"
1t was copied by the Mercury without
credit, and as there seems 10 be some mis-.
take about the matter, the error is charged
upon the Mercury; the item, we suppose.
having been first seen in that paper by the
Ledger. The Mercury, we fear, was led
into error by the Conservative and if so. we
take pleasure in mentioning the fact The
Ledger says, referring 10 the Mercury, sour
contemporary is mistaken Nothing Of the
kind occurred, and the Ledger gave no such
information" TO put an end TO the matter
we respectfully inquire of our contemporary,
the Ledger, If n meeting was not called on
sd!e-ddy, The 9Th, instead of Saturday, the
50 nit, or on some other day And didn't
II use the language above a~Cribcd to il =
III these questions are answered in the neg.
alive, the COnserrdtist has fallen into unu-
sual and unaccountable error. which it frank.
~ contesses and much regrets. Our i'm.
preston Is, however, that the types made US
Snft RI..,
the 9th and, until corrected. we feel certain
that the Ledger held the above language.
Nous Misunderstanding Conserratist.
We answer the first interrogatory of our
cotemporary in the negative. No meeting
was called or proposed here, either on the
Sd, 5th, or any other day in the month Of
March, or previous to that time and the
Ledger contained nothing on the subject
from which an Inference to that effect might
have been drawn. The ConserraiiSL. usu.
ally so correct in its statements, has for
once fallen into mistake, which we are
sorry that we cannot assist in explaining.
The second question We an.wer in the
affirmative. The language quoted was used
| by us in n lengthy article upon the subject
OF the convention, and We will here add
that the isolated sentence above quoted,
unconnected with what immedia tcly follow.
ed, was calculated to convey an erroneous
Impression in regard to our position upon
the Convention question.
When the article above referred to was
penned, there had been no effort To have
Lancaster represented in the Columbiu
Convention, and rs the adjoining Districts
had already moved in the matter, ani the
time for the State Convention drawing near,
it seemed probable then that Lancaster
would be unrepresented. subsequently,
we found that many Of our first citizens
were in favor Of being represented, and as
the matter became more discussed, there
seemed to be but few, comparatively, who
were really opposed to the measure. I'm.
der this state Of feeling, the call which ap.
peared in our paper OF week before last for
u meeting at the Court House on Salesday
in April, was made. The meeting was du.
y held, the result published in the Ledger
of last week, and Lancaster may now un-
questionably be numbered among the rep.
resented Districts in the Columbia Conven.
ton.