Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1866-09-29


with which each fought IT, The question came
up on the report OF the committee, which gave
the seal o Durfee the Leroy vacancy to I'd
dy and that from Parkmau 10 Field. The vote
ou the adoption ortbis report, which was the
test question, stood ayes 81, nays 80, or ayes 80,
nays 33, the Chair not being able 10 determine
which. So shows tho official report sigued by
the secretaries, so the Chair declared il, and 90
he still asserts. This testimony cannot be over
come by the suppression Of these figures 10 the
report OF the editor secretary pro fem--dele-
gate, who in advance declared that II Hitohc ock
we're nominated be would oppose bis election.
The subsequent votes Of course were no test,
as this excluded Durfee from The seat and Of
course delegates were not particular about vo-
ting, as is shown by the fact that on the very
next question only G2 votes we're given, several
being absent or refusing to vote. But the vote
on the action Of the committee was made
test aud turned, as editor Howes says in bis
report upon tho point, whether Durfeo or Wood
bury should occupy the seat and resulted as
stated above. OF course the delegates from
Leroy, MuDson and Parkman, did not, and
could not properly vote on this question and
with those voting (if 80 to 33) made up The
whole pumI,er OF the convention. But of those,
Durfee and Eddy together with Ford OF Bur
ton who ye'ed No, would have voted for
Hitchcock. AMI thus have given him with the
80 ayes, 80 votes and secured his nomination
But it is said the chair did not vote--if so, some
other delegate must have omitted to vote and
the actual count could have been 81 to 32-but
this does not change the result ns the chair
would also have ballutted for Hitchcock, and
with Ford, Eddy aod Durfee would have 10.
creased the 81 to 35 and nominated him.
! The same result is reached by another state.
meut of facts, AS shown by the official report.
2S delegates, after 6udug Woodbury. was to be
forced in as the delegate from Munson. left the
convention, organized instituted proceedings
FOR new convention. But Of those who ad.
hered to the original organization, Stafford of
Madison. Harman of Kirkland the delegate
from Russell, the Chair and Ford as,h Eddy
would have voted for q itchcock, and with Dur.
fee and the 20, would have given him IS. o ma.
jority Of the whole. In neither Of the above
estimates, do We take into account the dele
gate from Shefie Id, who has since repeatedly
declared, that no woald have voted for Hitch.
cock, nor several others who are said TO have
been inclined TO support him, bat whose action
was doubtfal. Nor do we know how many nays
there were 10 CbafIee's nomination by seeIama.
lion. But without reference TO doubtful votes.
it is perfectly apparent, that bat for the adm IS
sion Of togas delegate from Munson, who, as is
satisfactorily shown, had openly declared that
| Chaffee had stood by them 10 th cir railroad
suit, they must stand by him 10 the Judge mat.
ter, Hitchcock nud not Chaffee would have
been nominated and really he, and not Chaffee,
is the regular candidate. Nor is the Injustice
Of giving the Munson seat to Woodbury. at all
aided by the certificate subsequently got up, TO
excuse tue wrong, and pretended to be signed
by come lib Union voers of Munson, the whole
vote being about eco. Men of undoubted w..
raciy. say that of this list, names are du.
picated, Is are Democrats, and never were
union men, many ore not resident in this State
soDally interested 10 q suit now pending, in
which thur cause and Judge Chaffse's in this
election are the same aud which they wish
him to decide. How this may be, we know
not, but We submit that the mean principle
which jus,fes the going behind the primary
meeting 10 Munson, justifes it in all other towns
iu this District, and If done, it would show that
iD quite a number of towns where delegates vo.
ted for Cbadee and more than sufficient to turn
the scale, majority of the electors originally
More than this, it justifies going behind the
proceedings Of the convection, and an appeal
10 the people to know which candidate they
prefer; and If every eIector will vote now, just
as he would, had lie been present at tue prima-
ry meeting and the question had then been
made between Hitchcock and Choffee, the
election will show exactly who ought in justice
to have been no minated and that man will be
elected. And in all seriousness, we insist, that
the question as TO the merits of the two candi.
dates, is fairly open to The people, aud that the
convention iuterposes 20 barrier TO their Free
dom at the polls to vote for the best man. The
sole object Of nominating conven tioos 10 to con-
centra,e votes upon q single candidate, so
as TO prevent by division among SEVERAL
The election by minority vote of the candi.
date OF an opposite party. or one Of The same
party AID acceptable to the majority. But
here there is no such danger-there are bat
two candidates. one Of whom must be elected.
Both belong to the same party. and both are
equally radical and have ever stood shoulder
to shoulder for the Union. The question,
which was fairly the noninee of the District
convention, and the choice of the people at
their primary meetings. ia at least doubtful. and
why should not the electors at the polls have
tie privilege ofyotipg for tie best man, un-
rammeled by such a doubtful nominationi
Why do the friends OF Judge Chaffee 10 all
their hand bills and extras utterly overlook
this question and decline to discuss the re.
spectiye qualifications OF the two candidatesf
Why are they continually horpiog upon col
lateral issues aud endearoring to forestall and
1 e. r :