Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1862-01-24
mr.. cEssNA as cARp.

IAR. CESSNA'5 CARD.
/ We publish ia our Advertising columns ga
Gard" from John Cessna, Esq, in which be
attempts to justify bis action in contesting ana
oustipg Mr. Householder from the scat to
which he was fairly elected. TIE people of
Bedford County will tail 10 ba convinced by
auy arguments ho makes IL this "Card."
The fac. that Mr. Cessna states that he @of .
fered to the friends Of the late sitting member
aud 10 himself, that if he would aid in the pas
sage Of a lay to separate the two counties in
the future" lie ''sopl4 githlraw from the
contest aud permit hipl 70 occupy the place
during tho present session. and that Mr.
Householder refused, gives us higher opin
ion Of tha latter gentleman, and the people of
Bedford County will sustain him in it. Mr.
II. Ibis day could carry this county against
Mr. c. The people Of Bedford county be-
liege the present Law to be oonst.taioaal, and
they would not have sgreel with Mr.. House
bolder had he accepted Mr.. Cessna's PROPOSE
tiou. In 1850 Gambria was attached to Bed
ford, Fulton not yet being erected into coun,
/ ty. ii the present district Nas uneeashtu,
tioual, 50 was that Nj. Cessna was can
didato the following fail, bad bis tickets PRINT
ed With tho name Of the Cambria Democratic
candidate upon them, 10 both couaties, they
were voted SC, and be eleeiiopeerei in BOTH
He WIS elected, and, occupied his scat. It
will not DO for him now to say that he had
then majority in Bedford. If the district
was unconstitutional he was not entitled 10 a
seat, and he bad better refund to the State
/ the salary he received, But it was not neces~
sary fer him then to have the district divided,
as it was good democratic onei But Mr..
Gsssna says "ihe District of 1850 was based
/ upon different principal and was not liuble to
the constitutional Objection" How is thsl
According to tha table published by the COM
mittee anG Mr.. Cessna, Canbria had years
before attained the constitutional number to
ea'itle her to member Then Why was the
district s'not liable to the constitutional OBJ
jection" Probably Mr.. Cessna can explain,
for plain unsOphisticated persons cannot see
the difference
Granting for the argument-sake, the present
District to be unconstitutional. DID Mr.
Cessna act as fair and candid man should
in the last campaign2 No. he then expect
ed to have clear majority 10 the Districr, aud
the contest for the seat was, no doubt, deeided
| upon afterwards. Had Mr.. Cessna refused
to accept the nomination from the two coun-
ties which met in Democratic Conference in
this place, and procured the nomination from
toe ctunty OF Bedford only had he then
/ proclaimed that he believed the District to be
unconstitutional, and that ho would ouly run
in Bedford county, and would contest the seat
of whoever might be returned as elected from
the TIVE counties people would now say, all
ragAE But Instead of this he was nominated
by the two counties -elcctioneered in tha two
connties-had bis tickets printed in The two
counties with his own name and that Of Mr..
Lavan, the Somerset County Democratic can
didato upon-aud they were so voted. We
think that persons have reason after Mr. Cess
mas conduct in this matter and from express
sions Of his own on his subject, 10 charge th at
bis actions have some 'sultarior urposes" in
then.
Mr. Cessna intends paying tao expo nses of
the contest ont Of his own funds; ho deserves
credit also for offering AID laring passed a
bill allowing Mr. Householder $2l day for
the time he remained 10 bis seat and mileage,
hut somo say be can VIII afford to be thus
magnauimous, az be occupies tho seat to which
the other was honestly elected.
Ia conclusion, Dir. Cessna states that be
will occupy the same grounds Gu our present
national af.irs that be Das heretofore. We
are glad Of that and expected aothing else from
him his conduct has been ell ihat every lover
of hisseoautry could desire, ii regard TO our
present difficulties, and W. sbla always be-
| prepared to DO him Justice.