The Portland daily press., 1868-02-18
The No,nina,ioa for Mayor.


rious charges. Gentlemen Of standing and
character. one would suppose, would be very
autious in giving credence, to say nothing OF
giving currency, TO rumors affecting the integ-
ritz OF so large number of their fellow cit-
gems and political associates. 1t would appear
if these charges are to be credited, that IN the
city committee, in Ward 2, and in the cohNeh-
tion ofdelegates from all the wards, sum-
Gent number of dishonest Republicans were
fnund n control the nomination by unfair
means This is what these gentlemen mean,
and Substantially what they say. If they be-
ueve this, it is iural that they should re-
Yoonstrste against the action of the commit
tee, the caucus and the convention. Perhaps
it would have been better if they had come
into the Republican meeting Saturday even
ing, and had an explanation there instead of
going before the general public with their
grievances. 1t would have seemed then that
they We're sincerely DESTROYS of coming TO g
better understanding with their political
friends The testimony to which they have
listened is necessarily er porte. Ii they had
stated their conclusions in a Republican meet
ing like that of Saturday evening, there would
have been an opportunity for the other side TO
be heard and it is possible that the demand
for the rejection of the recent nomination, if
made at sill, would not have been quits SO per-
emptory.
We do not mean however to waste time up
on the manner in which these gentlemen have
| chosen TO present their demand. 1t is the de-
mand itself, and the reasons assigned for it
which we propose to examine. Its certainly
| an unusual request which we are called TO
consider. A candidate for mayor has been
nominated in due form, and we are asked TO
drop the nominee SO chosen and try again. 1t
is not infatuated that the choice is an improp-
er one, The candidate is capable and honest,
tried by long experience; nobody objects TO
him; but it is thought that under certain con-
tingences another good candidate might have
been selected. This is extraordinary doctrine.
The propriety of refusing to vote tor bad can
didate is generally admitted in the Republi-
can party; but to refuse to vote for good
candidate because another good candidate
might possibly have been nominated is mere
absurdity. The purpose of nomination is
to enable people who think alike TO act togeth-
er. We have made nomination. Is it good
one? Then let us support it, Even if new
canvass should give us new candidate, it is
to be considered whether we should not lose
by such childish INDIGESTION more prestige than
any candidate can lend to the ticket.
But what reason have we to suppose that
new trial would lead to any different result
We are told that " the facts are within the
personal knowledge" OF two of the five gentle
men constituting this committee, which seems
comprise in itself judge, jury, counsel and wit
nesses. The first of the 4" facts" within the
personal knowledge of these committee men,
is not a fact at all but an insinuation, that by
calling the ward meetings earlier than usual
and with brief notice, the city committee gave
to those in the secret an unfair advantage
" Such proceeding" we are told, was with
out precedent" This is statement which
ought to have been within the personal knowl-
edge Of every man who signed his name to it,
Gentlemen have no right to talk about prece-
dents, unless they k9eoag what they are talking
about We have taken pains to look up the
record on this point, as shown by our files.
Since the establishment OF the Press in 1862,
we find that tho notification for ward caucuses
has preceded the meetings twice by the same
length Of time as this year. once Ga Sunday in
Longer notice was given this year than either
last year or the year before. What are we TO |
think of an investigating committee which be- |
gins its report with such statement as this! |
What confidence can we put in their con-
illusions touching other and obscurer points?
AS for the intimaton that the time was fixed |
in accordance with previous understanding |
we have the written statement of the members |
of the city committee present at the meeting |
on the 9TH instant, to the effect that "the time /
was fixed after consultation in committee that |
evening, by unanimous consent, and not in ac
cordance with any previous understanding |
whatever."S So much for the first fact.
The account of the caucus at Ward 2 comes
next. We have only to say that it differs ma
terially from the statements of eight gentle
men present at the meeting, with whom we |
conversed yeste rday, in the following particu-
lars: /. There were three lamps in the room
instead of one, during the time of voting.
2. The committee appointed to receive |
votes, stood by the table and did not,
as alleged, "gather them in the room"
One Of our informants had an impression that
he saw Mr.. VIM. G. Soule, who was one of the
and who also signs the statement
now under review, away from the table gather
ing votes. If this Is so, Mr.. Soule's knowledge |
Of the fact may be admitted but he cannot take
advantage of his own wrong. 9. The meeting
was noisy, as crowded caucuses are apt to be,
but not in any true sense "dsorderly."-
4. Voters were coming and going ill the time,
ands-the count which Mr.. Peabody says he
made, was made after the voting was over. A
gentleman from Ward l. who entered the
room just before Mr.. Peabody's count, saw
twelve or fifteen men going away as he ap-
preached and met two more in the entry COM
ing out. Mr.. Peabody was very sure at the
next day, that nobody had gone /
away; he is ready to take his affidavit now
that not more than seoen had gone away after
voting. What he means is that he did not see
many men going out; other people did. 8. The
meeting did not break up in confusion, but |
was regularly adjourned after the report of |
the committee announcing the election of the |
Mcclellan delegates by vote of IS TO AS. 6. If |
voters did not know what votes they were |
carrying, it was their own fault. There is alb |
solutely nothing. however, to show that the |
circumstances enumerated worked In favor of |
the Mcclellan rather than the Deering dele
Sdtes' II tiIo Ioou WIS uafh, ana the DaIlotJ |
were improperly collected, and there was |
noise and confusion, what reason is there to
suppose that these circumstances affected the |
result in one way, rather than the other?- |
None at all. Not particle. 1t is pure as
sumption, unsupported by a jot or title OF |
evidence.
This whole matter has been fairly and pa
tiently considered once, and decided The |
convention gave Mr.. Peabody, who appeared
for the remonstrants, fair hearing. 1t is
conceded by his friends that he did not make !
out even a plausible case. What these gen
tleman mean now by asserting that majority |
of the other delegates were opposed to the ad- |
mission of the delegates from Ward 2. it is DIFF |
fcult to understand. There was no "question |
of their admission; they were there The |
pro osition to submit the matter to another |
ward meeting was not "rejecUed"; it was of |
fered by one of the delegates from Ward 2, for |
the sake of peace, but was afterwards with
drawn by request and nobody in the coauea-
ton sato ft to Teaeeo 1t. The only vote taken |
was on the motion to lay the remonstrance on |
the the table, which was carried without a |
count and by large majority. It is not true |
that the delegates from Ward "yoted them |
selves into their their own seats"
After such decision by the delegates from |
the seven wards of the city, it would seem that |
the matter should rest. It is simply question