Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1860-06-13
From tie Philadelphia Arzul
Governor BigIer,s Letta,

1rlencs OF Judge Douglas IN terms az =
probation; that they found fault with al -
demned Senator Bigler for biz eoursa 80
convention. and charged him With eer,,;-N -
and intentions which would, If tbeir
ments were true, be derogatory to bi-~
democrat and statesman.
We have not considered il necesss--
lish the communication of Mr. Moor -
because We have not the space tO-dar - /
secondly. because the letter Of Gov r.
covers the whole ground, and shos.
that communication was.
We desire particularly TO call the st:sre.
Of our readers to this letter. 1t fuDT
clearly explains the position Of Senator r.
in the Charleston Convention. In
no lodging of the charges OF his eneuijs, =
meets every accusation made By the fr;s,s. /
Judge Douglas with that boldness. na,r..
and Straightforward honesty chsrac.zri-;,
the man. No backing down, no be,vT.
the question, nc special pleading. but N
est, plain, candid statement, foup5e3 -
the facts and circumstances which tb.r -
there existed
WAsHISGToy. D. c., May 26. lse
DEAR SIR: Ny attention has been :. &
quently called TO fagrabt misrepresepis.s-
of my actions and intentions IS a .cles.,.
the Charleston ConventioD. similar "a :,
/ enclosed by you, that have re!uel-uily -
( cluded, In order TO relieve myself from IN
slant opportunities, TO meet all these eis,,.
in this reply TO yOG, which you may nv.
the newspaper press, If you think It tnesassr-
and proper 1t is right to remark ~
whilst 1 shall speak somewhat freely q 4
IN majority of the Pennsylvania deleE.,;, n
that Convention, speak oaly for mystl.. hi
having had an opportunity Of consulting :. }.
any one, ana must be alone resyousib.s 81
what L say.
The structures which you enclose to us p
the course and purposes of the majority G. tis
F! Pennsylvania delegation at Charleston, vE;
be severe, indeed, if they were fouais. I,
truth; but they are either totally uut1ulls
or ind their existence IN forced parE5rs1
of the facts. 1t Is not true that the r-sr+
OF the Pennsylvania delegation sought 70 IN
Mr. Douglas from the field, by ader-ir,
platform OF principles on which be c 7ali Z
honorably stand. So far from this. We 7as
to make the nominations before the pla.ii--,
whilst the minority OF our delegation AID
other friends OF lIr. D0ngias v1Jcd to d
the platform fist This was the fatai e.
of the Convention, as ali parties fraukly q
fesscd at the subsequent Stages ef is prEs
eiBgs. Then again, or this same p1iat, !
majority voted lUr motion, submitted l7r
self, to Tceommit the platform, hoping Ii Il
way TO reach the bs!lotiGg for cah5iiar55 :.
tull Conventions; bat the effort failed
Equally untrue Is the allegation TIA:
! Fa--n-a.s 10 oE
the party 10 the policy of a slave code u Z
Territories. Ii Is true that We sust4i1ai !
series Of resolutions last reported by Tie Z
, joIity Of the committee, or rather hT the :
enteen democratic States; bur DO Ssz-uIOl
mar viii pretend TO discover TIE prin.:ges
a slave code or anything Ike then II Il,
, resolutions They simply forbade the "a
, | cluSion that the Territories are sayereiggz
and declared 1t the daty of the Govern.
; to protect constitutional rights by ogls--
tional means, rs well in tie Ierrityries s.
, ! ahere. Surely no government sborl3 del
than this. As | understood L, the friend,
Mr.. Douglas took exception to that AZ
the resolutions th2t excluded tie idea @. :
erelgn power IN 5he territorial goyeTumll-
rather, the right of the territorial legislz
to exclude slavery or slave property iro-
: Territory; bat l DO not think IT vas sa-i5l
: pretended by any that the resolutions c7-1
A., ted the party 10 . slave code, noT aId / 7
: any delegate VINO was seriously IL .syoT G.
: such speculative legislation. No seusit-sz
pretends that Congress can create riE-z
; slavery or slave property il the TerTIto-'-
!, anywhere else The only question +, :;
whether that species OF property Is 20 5s I
. tanned and protected IN the rights the Uo-
tuition gives it. Nothing more Is asked,
nothing less viii be acceptable TO tt u
1t is also untrue that we favored tie e--
% of the ceceedine States, or at any time
5 ifested determination to 90 ont with Il
No body Of men IN the Convention e0ne1
!. witnessed their Withdrawal with fes-irli
" deeper regret than did the majority u
r PENNSYLVANIA delegation. for the dirs5t
d dency of that act was 10 favor the r5.1l-l
lg of candidate we were against; ala
not believe there were any men II Cs--7
~ who exerie6 themselves more arde1-.T
ct did portion Of the Pennsylvania osia.s
d to induce the ceeeeGeTs TO return TO ios :
vention. myself amongst the numh5-. 7
n true. that when 1t was generally undss
3 aud believed that the reuaineder Of tlso''
nv ern States, falling to have their 2----A@
an accepted by the Convention, would 3
ng cede, together with the two Paeihe =
many of Us had determined, ar1 bad d,
ed itated to say. that on the happening 9 !.
ats contingency, we should refuse to PsT--s
" any longer in the proceedings o. 'os
veuson. This we should have done .
Tor nomination, made under such eiTe--'
,ar ces, would have been an idle eeTsn''-.,
m would have foreoiosed all chance OF T'-'.- 80.
ie- iation IN the Convention or success 70 -
The "; but no one, so far as my knoEleaS'
,m though seriously of going ont vita Il !
the States that had retired, or for the =
ent which they assigned.
IN, The inquiry-put in on g:acloa' :
uc- "whether the Cincinnati platform m
lad good enough for the majority OF ins !.
sylvauia delegation, is readily anSSs',..
full was good enough for Us, and We yoiea /.
re- but we were willing. in addition, II o..