The hydraulic press., 1861-03-30
"E e PLURIBUS UNUMn AND MIR.
T.E

| tanning; but we cannot allow the second COM
munication of "E PLURIBUs UNUM" to pass
without word or two Of comment.
Our correspondent denies specifically, but ad-
mits inadvertently, the statement that Mr.. Miller
was nominated and elected as an ant-Lecomp-
tonite. He says, {" The Convention which nom-
mated Mr.. Miller was called by the Central
Committee of the National Democratic party
Uecompton party, if you please;) members of
that committee called primary meetings in the
various precincts throughout the county. The
anti-Lecomptonites had nothing to do with the
calling of either Convention or primary meet
President, they signifed their desire to join with
us in the approaching contest"
With all due respect to " E PLuRIBUs UNuM,"
we regard an argument on this head as absurd.
That portion of his language quoted, which we
have underscored, confesses the whole story.
Oar nominee for President" was Stephen A.
Douglas, who made his fight against Mr.. Bu-
chanan and his administration ON this rery Le-
compton issue! 1t was this which split the
Democratic party, and caused Mr.. Douglas to be
deposed from the Craftsmanship of the Commit
tee on Territories. Although the Lecompton
question, per Sc, had been disposed of, the popu-
lar sovereignty issue, of which Mr.. Douglas was
| the champion, remained and it was on this
platform that the opponents of Mr.. Buchanan,
including ant-Lecomptonites, old line Wings,
and conservatives generally, rallied. The Doug
las men, after the breaking up of the National
Convention, professed to be the Democratic
party, because their candidate had been nom-
mated according to the party usages, and on the
Cincinnati platform but it was the great anti
Lecomp:on or popular sovereignty doctrine which
lay at the foundation of the dispute, and which
prevented the counsels of the National Conyen-
ton from being harmonious.
| So much for that branch of the question.
| We care nothing for these hair-splitting party
technicalities. Whether Mr.. Miller was at heart
Lecompton or anti-Lecompton, is to us matter
of utter indifference. lie permitted himself to
be candidate of the Union men and Union
party of this county, which was called the Doug
las or anti-Lecompton wing, and was elected by
their votes. 1t is too late now to attempt de-
fning any other kind of position; and although
"E PLURIBUs UNUM" may undertake to defend
him on party grounds, there is higher morality
involved, before which, as before a tribunal of
judgment, Mr.. Miller will be tried and held to an
official responsibility. He has voted and acted
with TRAITORS. Therein lies his great sin,
from which he will have to undergo thorough
purgation before he replace himself in the
confidence of his disappointed constituency.
Since writing the foregoing, with the intention
of adding other remarks, we have received the
Union of Monday, containing personal ex-
panation from MIR. Miller, relating to his vote
on the last ballot in Joint Convention. We
copy it below, in order that no injustice may be
done him, and are glad he makes the confession
he does, from which it is plainly stated he
would have voted for Mr.. McDougall, if he knew
his vote would have secured that gentleman's
election. 1t is possible Mr.. Miller may object to
McDougall on personal grounds, which he does
not think proper to make known. If so he is
in some sort excusable, but not for sustaining a
secessionist-which, in our view, is term
synonymous with thtraitor-and Nugent is accused
of having uttered secession sentiments.
| There is one feature in Mr.. Miller's explana-
ton which we do not like. He says "Mr. Mer-
ritt La secessionist] came and urged me to vote"
Now, as Merritt supported Nugent, he must have
had good reason to know, that if Mr.. Miller voted
at ALL he would cast his ballot for his Merritts
candidate. The conduct of Merritt was pre-
sumptuouS. 1t seemed as if he knew he had
the right from some previous familiarity or in
terchange of views between himself and Mr..
Miller to command the vote of the latter gentle
man. But here is what Mr.. Miller said in his
| Dlace in the Assembly on Saturday last
Mr.. MILLER-I rise to question of privilege
1t appears that my action has been misstated in
some of the papers which have been received to-
day, in relation to the election of United States
Senator, and for the purpose of placing this mat
ter right so that it can be understood properly,
wish to read the articles referred to, and then to
state the facts. The correspondence of the Bull
letin of yesterday, received to-day, says: GAS
McDougall stood at this time, he was elected by
majority of the whole Legislature; but, as was
anticipated, two of those who had voted for him
objected to the fusion that had eridently taken
place, and changed their votes. Mr.. Miller, of
who had voted for McDongall while there was
no chance of electing him-hoping, no doubt,
that they would have the credit of supporting
man who could have been elected but for factious
opposition to the Republicans deliberately took
course to defeat what they themselves had ap-
peared to be anxious to effect, and what the peo-
1
state, sir that in all the ballots that were given
here, voted for Mr.. McDougall, but one and
voted for him then because was told by gen.
tleman, friend of his, and member of the
Convention, that my vote given to him on that
ballot would elect, and that the contest would
thereby be terminated. I had not sufficient OBJ
jections to Mr.. McDougall to desire to defeat an
election, not only then but for this winter and
therefore Immediately gave my vote for Nc
Dougall, under the impression that it would elect
him: 1t will be recollected by you, sir, and by
all the members of this House, that did not
vote on the day when the Convention was last
held until the last ballot, and after every other
person had voted but one, who subsequently
changed his vote. had kept tally, and kept
it correctly, as ascertained by counting it over
in the presence of other gentlemen. BY my
tally, as / kept it at that time, Mr.. McDougall
was elected; and l believed him to be elected !;
and wish to state here, that if Mr.. McDougall
had lacked one vote of an election, / would have
given my vote for McDougall instead of for Nu-
| gent. should have considered that nv duty to