The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-04-30

| establishment of the Union as it was
handed down to us by our fathers.
During his two years IN Congress
he had opposed the Freedmen's Bu-
reau Bill, the Tenure Of Office Bill,
the Civil Rights Bill and the Recon
| struction Bill. All these he regarded
as unwise, impolitic and unconstitu-
tional. He proceeded to give in de-
tail the provisions of the Reconstruc-
ton Bill.
The speaker then proceeded to dis
duss at some length, the question
was fairly nominated at Calhoun. He
| claimed that false announcements as
to the time of holding that Conven
his friends and preventing their at
tendance; that the votes in the Con-
yention were based upon the vote
given Duvall, instead of the whole
vote ofthe District; that he had given
no man a right to pledge him to abide
by the Conventions decision. and
that the Convention having Hbeen
guilty of sfnjusticet to him, he refused
to give inhis adhesion to its nominee.
He thanked the Convention for the
resolution endorsing his course in
Congress, but thought the Conven-
ton had a strange way of showing
their appreciation of his services, by
giving the nomination to an
other man, in defiance of the
| custom of returning mem
bers of Congress a second time.
when they had served the people ac-
ceptably, He said that the conven-
ton had discarded the name. of the
Conservative Union Democratic par
ty, and had styled the party now run
ming Brown, the Democratic party.
70 this party he did not belong and
never had. The real reason why the
Calhoun Convention did not nominate
him, was because he was a Union
man. The Democrats say let by
cones be by-gones," while, at the
same time they prescribe Union men,
and had, in all their Congressional
nominations, thrown overheard every
man except those who could show
that, in some way or another, he had
aided the rebellion in its Struggle
against the Government, and to this
policy the Democratic party of Ken
lucky was fully committed.
Mr.. Ritter then read q letter from
John Young Brown to the Louisville
Courier, dated April 18th, 1861, pub
llshed some time ago in the JOURNAL.
The speaker then read the oath pre-
scrlbed by Congress as a qualification
of its members, and gave it as his
opinion that the man who would write
such a letter in 1861 could not now
take the cath; and if he could, that
the House of Representatives would
not receive him. = They had turned
out Voorhees, and Brooks, and would
not admit men of that stripe. The
party to which the speaker belonged
was declared to be the Union Demo
cratic party, which had saved
the State of Kentucky in times
gone by, and which was now
its only hope. John Young Brown
declared this third party to be insig-
nificant, yet in the recent election at
Louisville, its candidate for Mayor
was elected by 1000 majority. This
party would gosto neither extreme. 1t
was Conservative, and the only party
in full sympathy with the great Dem
ocratic party of the North. He de-
clared the Vallandigham and Voor-
hees cliques in the North Contempt
BILE factions without influence, and
not authorized to speak the senti-
ments of the Democracy. He closed
by calling upon all who loved their
country to rally to the support of this
party, from whom alone the country
could hope for deliverance from the
perils which now environ it. The
Conservative Democrats of the Union
must, if possible, avert the disasters
which now threatened the Republic.
Mr.. Brown followed Mr.. Ritter,
and commenced by saying that he APP
peared before the people as the reg
ular nominee of the Democratic party.
The Convention at Calhoun repre-
scented eleven of the twelve counties
Of the District; all the candidates
were either present or represented by
friends, and all alike were pledged to
its decision; that Mr.. Ritter OBJ
tanned 282 votes on the first ballot,
and he 334, and that Mr.. Ritter was
then dropped, he being the third and
lowest candidate. He gave a full his
tory of the Convention, and claimed
that his nomination was fair, and ac-
cording to the usages of the Dem
party.
Referring to the letter written by
him in 1861, and read by MI. Ritter,
he had only to say that at the time
the letter was written it represented
his views as it did those of every
Union man In Kentucky. When he
came from Congress in 1861, he found
the people of his District excited, and
he went among them urging them to be
calm and di~spassionate, and exhaust
every peaceful means of solving the
During the Congress- in