The Weekly Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, O. [Ohio]) 1861-1???, 1866-07-27
TuE WILLIAMS COUNTY CoNVEN-
TlON AGAIN PERSONAL AND

ruE WILLIAMS COUNTY CoNVEN
j T1ON Personal AMI
OTHERWISE.
Our expose OF the Williams County Con
vention, ia our issue of the 18th, seems {,
hove "out to the quick, from the manne
in which Il has been assailed. A writer il
the Btade Of the 18th inst, dovotes half
column to show the course Of the JouRNxl
in general, and to reply 10 its ventilation o
tho Williams County Convention, in portic
ular Tho Bryan Pyess also comes to tht
rescue, IN very tame and insipid column
alNl.a-quarter article, which amounts to sim
ply nothing at all. In neither article has d
single point that we made been successful
ly conhovorted. In our review Of tho pro
ceedings of that Convention wo mado in
substance; the following points:
|. That the Convention did not instruct
it's delegates to cast their votc for J. NJ
AsinEY, the assertion Of The Union Press
to tho contrary notwithstanding.
2. That tho Convention, instead Of being
harmonious throughout was a scono Of
| wranSllnS ana confusion.
In regard to our article, the Union Press
says il lis full Of msstatemonts" yet has
failed to point out single one A sweep.
ing charge like this, unsupported by the
least particle oC proof, won't answer. We
challenge reiulauon to any statement con.
tanned in our articb. 1t il true from begin.
ming to cnd, and VIC have not a word to
take back,
| In reference 10 Our first proposition, the
| Press acknowledges il to bo correct, in
thcso words: "Very true. Tho COnvcu.
tion did MI instruct 10y resolutions or 9th.
erwise," but further addS ".and wo never
said il did" Tweedlo.do.dum aud TwcodIe-
d1-dee. 1t declared, however, that the del
cgates ,cere instructed, and every one but a
sophcad knows that tho Cnonveution il tho
ouly power authorized to instruct, and in.
| slructon from any other source is no in.
struction at all. Your townships may sep
aratcly choose their delegates, but tho qucs.
ton of instruction or noninstruction is vest.
cd in the Convention. When instruction
is spoken Of, it is with reference to its en-.
anation from the proper authority, and the
only authority, aud not from an individual
or irresponsible party.
Then, our declaration, that tho delegates
were mol instructed is Acknowledged to be
true.
Tho Press acknowledges the correclnes5
of our second satemcnt--that harnony
did not characterizcsthe proceedings Of the
Cunvontion-.in these words
"Of course there was moro or less noise,
and some confusion, owing to the difficulty
the Speakers had OF making themselves
heard ia such largo assemblugo Of per.
Sous. Appliances were quito frequent aud
manifestations QFdiSdyprO6yHiOH 6s1'e quite
0Hdi6tc, at times" &o.
Aud this, right in tho teeth Of tho same
editor 3 tion, two weeks previous, that
the Convention was harmoa,ous tGough.
out" We dill not think tho editor would
But, perhaps ho found it TO be tho better
course, aud wo are glld that ho makes all
the rcparation within his power, by pub
fishing tho fact that the Convention did mol
instruct it's delegates.
Win ,bo Toledo C6mmorcfh and other
papers be equally frauk in correcting their
missiotcincnts upon this pointE We shall
see.
Tho Press farther saysi 1t mny be
poSsihlo THAT tho wNjovi,y oS the uuio,
voters in tho District arc in favor of the
nomination of Colonel SLEyrN, II ST., he
will doubtless he nominated Bah Tell
that to tho marines. The editor himself
knows better, The "ropes arc not in the
hands of tho majority. Official patronage
is powerful lever, and it will not prove
without avail in this instance.
While OH this subject wo shall notice one
or two points introduced in tho Blade cor.
respondcnco in reference 10 the course OF
the JOURNAL. This writer accuses the jour.
NAL of repeating arguments that have boen
urged against Mr.. ASHLEY prior to each
Congressional Nominating Convention for
the past six years, and says; Meanwhile,
sions, given most emphatic verdict agains
these assumptions aud will do 50 again..
That is quito cool and refreshing this July
weather. let us sec. Ono of these TEN
phatio vordicts" was q minority of 4,l05
votes; another of these "emphatic verdicts'
was lack, in polling the strength of the
Union party, of some 1900 votes, God
save the Union party from these" emphatic
verdiots," One moro of these emphatic
verdiots," we fear, will ease the fluent wri
ter of tho cmOlumonts of his snug official
position.
But the writer closes his communication
with an assertion Ms ooutomptiby mean
aud cowardly, as it is base with tl1ehood
and malignity. Whom speaking Of the JouR
NAL pledging itself to support tho nominee
of the Union Convention, ho says; an
glad of that, because its recent course ho,
led many to believe that ii would eitho
favor an Independent candidate or suppor
tho Democratic nominee,' In making thi
statement, the writer seems TO have tcuohe,
bottom in tho depths of falsehood aud ma
lightly. Those who have read tho JouRNA
know to the contrary, ahd we defy tho wri
ter to point to single line, in the JouRNA
at any time, that would lead any one to be
licve that il would not support tho nomine
OF the Convention. When the JouRNAL frs
- -