Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-11-22

Republicans, all over the State, who voted
| our Legislative ticket, know and under
stand that they were voting for Vallandig-
ham for Senator, and expect and desire his
election? Is it right or fair, then, to
| urge the failure of Judge Thurman to
secure the office he was voted for, as a
| reason why he should have another for
| which Mr.. V. was openly candidate, and
in many places openly voted for?-Dayton
Ledger
| There was no man ''openly candidate
for the United States Senate during the
| late contest. The Convention that put the
Democratic State Ticket in nomination on
the Sth of January last, did not nominate
any person or resolve in favor of any body
for the United States Senate. The party
was not committed to any one. 1t is true
that the Republican press, in the hope they
could thereby deter people from voting
the Democratic Ticket, asserted that it the
Democrats were successful in carrying the
Legislature they would elect Mr.. VALLAN-
DIGHAM to the United States Senate. 1t is
true. too. that they charged that to. give
success to the Democracy would be equiv
alent to declaring in favor of Reputation.
Must we look to their assertions for our
guidance?
Neither the Democratic stumpers nor
presses discussed the Senatorial question.
They dwelt upon the proposition to allow
Negroes to vote, to the corruption of the
Radical party and to the currency ques-
tion but none asked the people to vote for
the Democratic candidates for the Legisla-
ture because they desired to send Mr..
VALLANDIGHAM or any other particular
man to the United States Senate.
Mr.. r.VALLANDIGHAM has conclusive and
unquestionable right to be candidate for
the United States Senate. So have Judge
THURMAN, Judge RANNEY, Hon. HUGH j.
JswKTT, or any other Democrat in good
standing, or rather the Democratic mem
b ,rs of the Legislature have tile right to
elect whichever OF these get tlemen they
shall see proper. If the members of this
body. after they shall get together, upon
comparison of notes and after calm sur
vey of the whole field, shall come to the
conclusion that the election of MIR. VAL
LANDIGHAM to the United States Senate will
secure for us the best representation in
that body and strengthen US in the Presi-
genital contest next year, he should be by
all means elected. These are matters that
1t is incumbent upon the Legislature to
carefully consider. In our Judgment, no
man has a claim upon the United States Sena-
torship. 1t is position man should be
put into who can exercise the most COM
manding influence. be that man Judge
THURMAN, or Mr.. VALLANDIGHAM, or any
other man. -4s ... aa-.,...l.
The partiality of the large majority of
the Democratic press that have spoken on
the Senatorial question is for Judge
THURMAN. They have some knowledge of
him-know him to be first class man in
every particular. What the Ledger means
by "the newspaper game,'" which it as
rts is $50 extensively carried on by
NJ cans well understood" we do not know,
unless it wishes to be understood as inti-
mating that these editors misrepresent the
wishes of the Democrats in their respec-
tive localities, and are induced to do SC
through some potent outside influence. Is
this is not gratuitous insinuation? Does
not the Ledger express the wishes OF the
Democrats of Montgomery in its advocacy
of Mr.. VALLANDIGHAM? Would it be just,
then, to insinuate that it was subject to a
"newspaper game" and that that ''news-
paper game" was extensively carried on
by means we'll understood ?" And is it not
as fair to presume that the Democratic pa
pers that think the Democracy of Ohio
would be honored in sending Judge THUR
MAN to the United States Senate as truly
speak the sentiments of the Democracy in
their counties on this subject as does the
Ledqer the wishes of the Democracy of
Montgomery
Would it not be better for the Ledger to
undertake to convince the Democratic pa
pers that have spoken in favor of Judge
THURMAN that they are mistaken in the
man-that he is deficient in ability, in
learning, in char acter, and that his Demcc-
racy is defective, and that therefore it
would be iniudicious to elect him to the
United States Senate, because he would
have no influence to speak of in that body?
The Democratic members of the last Legis-
lature unanimously put him in nomination
and voted for him for the United States
Senate. 1t is true the Democrats had no
majority in that body then. Why did they
thus put him in nomination and thus vote
for him? Why did they not nominate and
vote for Mr.. VALLANDIGHAM instead? Had
they done so, that would have been putting
him "openly" before the people of the
State as ga candidate" in the late
election. The act of the last Legisla-
ture in nominating and voting for Judge
THURMAN for the United States Senate gave
the people of the State to understand that
he was man worthy to be elected to the
Senate, and that very circumstance may
have led many Democratic editors to con-
clude that now that we have majority in
the incoming Legislature, and to secure
which he contributed as m uch as any other
man, it would be highly proper to ratify
that nomination of the Democratic portion
OF the Legislature. Judge THURMAN, too
has reason to conclude that he has the
right to consider himself qualified to be
elected to the United States Senate mas
much as he received that unanimous SUI
port last year in the Legislature, or is it
allowed for him to be candidate only at
such time when there is no chance of an
| election E.B.E.
Impeachment.
A full meeting of the Judiciary commit
tee was held Tuesday night, at which. as
was understood in Washington, the sense
of the members was taken upon the i'm
peachment question, and it was found that