The Shasta courier., 1867-07-06
Vindication of VIM. III. Parks,
From the Sacramento Unior.

have seen fit to charge me with fraud and
corruption in the Union State Convention
and as Chairman of the State Central Com
mittee. aud as you have yourselves openly
denounced my course as fraudulent and cor
rupt, / now ask you, as honorable and indie.
pendent journalists, to insert the following
communication, in which | expect to vindi.
cate my own honor rs well as that of the
State Convention. ! am charged with com.
mitting wholesale frauds: of making corrupt
bargains and sales-and without making any
direct specifications. Consequently | shall
have to review my action oc the State Con
vention in order to allow Union men to judg ge
whether the wholesale charges are correct or
not. am charged with so arranging the
basis of representation for the Convention
as to give Gorham the advantage, and of so
fixing the acts as to allow Democrats to vote
at the primaries. | am also charged with
usurpation Of power, and of making fraudu-
lent decisions as Chairman of the State Cen.
trail Committee. | now propose to ventil
ate these specific charges in their order.
| had the honor Of being Chairman of the
Third Congressional District Committee as
well as of the State Central Committee, and
was desirous of having the Congressional
Convention held before the State .Conven
ton, and also desired to have the same basis
of representation and the same test as would
be adopted by the State Central Committee,
and for that purpose wrote to the Secretary
of the Central Committee Alfred Barstow)
asking him to talk with the Executive Com
mittee and get their views as to the proper
representation and test. He replied that he
was in favor of adopting the Sauderson
vote; allowing a delegate for every two
hundred and fifty votes, thus making Con
vention of about two hundred and fifty. |
replied that, with the addition of one vote
for each county his suggestion would suit
me. This change would have increased the
number to about three hundred. He took
grounds against the increase and asked what
there was, except the vote in a county, to be
represented. | must confess that the only
reason | could assign for it was precedent
The Congressional Committee met and over
ruled me-callng the Congressional Con-
ven:ion after the State Convention. The
State Central Committee met, and now for
its action. IIardcnburgh (anti-Gorham)
made motion that the vote for President
Lincoln be the basis of representation, al
lowing one delegate for every two hundred
votes and one for every fraction of one hum
dred, which motion was adopted without a
dissenting voice. Hardenburgh then moved
that j. W. Dwinelie and Ira. p. Rankin
(both, believe, anti Gorham men) be ap
pointed committee to prepare suitable
test, and they reported substantially the one
adopted. Walter Murray, proposed this
amendments Did you vote for Lincoln and
Johnson? p which was voted down. think
only Murray voted for it; possibly DIR.
Nixon did also. This was the action Of the
Committee on these points. There were
present nine members of the Committee and
one proxy If | understand correctly the
status of the Committee and of those present.
of the ten votes represented at least seven of
them were antiGorham men, there eing
however, no contest. and no expression Of
opinion as to Gorham or anti-Gorham. |
merely mention this to show that there
could have been no " fix up'' in favor of
Gorham. /, being in the chair, neither
made motions, discussed them, nor voted
upon them. The test was published, and
every Union paper in the State endorsed it
the country papers finding fault only with
their being deprived of one delegate from
each county, and charging me with fixing it
up in some way to my own advantage, when
| was the only one, to nv knowledge, in the
Committee who made the least effort to pro-
cure such representation. DR.. Nixon, of
Sacramento, now one of the dissatisfied ones,
ton of the Committee, and now sits quietly
by and sees me charged with fixing that
Committee, when he knows it is not true,
and when he could by half dozen lines
exonerate me from the charge. | now de.
clare that this charge is false in every par.
tcular and without the slightest four dation
whatever. And after giving the action of
the Committee, and the names of those who
participated in it, | think further proof is
not necessary to convince any candid person
that l could not have /" fixed things" in that
Committee had been SO disposed.
Now, as to my usurpation of power"
and % outrageous decision.n As to usurpa-
ton of power, it only requires slight re-
Election on the part of any individual to see
that | was required to make decision in
the matter The question was sure to arise
as to which, if either, of the delegations
from San Francisco should cast the VOTE
You may all take issues with me as to cor
rectness of my decision, but you cannot say
it was usurpation of power; neither can
be charged with fraud, because the correct
ness of the decision was n mere matter OF
opinion, and had no power to enforce my
own opinion upon others. An appeal could
have been taken from my ruling, and If
majority of the Convention disagreed with
me, | should have been overruled. Now, if
it was such an outrageous and fraudulent
decision as charged. why did three hundred
delegates sit and silently acqniesce in the
fraud? Were they taken by surprise ?
Were they unacustomed to sitting in Con-
ventions or other deliberative bodies, or what
excuse have they to offer? They were not
surprised, for | had informed General Bid
well what my decision would be two days
before the assembling Of the State Conven-
ton. No, sirs the question was well un-
derstood, and well canvassed for two days,
and General Bidwell's friends determined
not to make the appeal. and not to make q
fight against the admission Of the San Fran
cisco delegation. They made thorough
canvass, and found that, although General
Bidwell had many ardent supporters, they.
as conscientious men, would not vote for the
exclusion of that delegation, and their sub
sequent action will bear me out in this
statement. They accepted the decision as
correct, without an appeal, and expected to
win the organization on that basis. They
lost it. But you ask me, why rule out both
delegations from Sacramento and admit one
from San Francisco? 1t might be a sufi-
cient answer for me to say, the same reason
that prompted General Bidwells friends to
accept of the report of the Committee on
Credentials so far as the San Francisco dele