Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1871-07-27
ST. MARY'S BEACON
fLEosxeDrows, I'D.
THURSDAY, NoESrSo. Jsfy ,1,h. is,i.

THx IspEpxxpsxr Trxsr.-The cart
addressed to the public" through III
last issue Of the Beacon. over the sigma.
lures Of parties claiming to Be members o.
the democratic party. and announcing
themselves rs Candidates before the PEG.
Ile." has no doubt excited the surprise o.
our readers and struck many old fashioned
people with mute wonder and astonish'
ment. For ourselves. We confess the full.
lest amount Of surprise We are capable d
feeling. and IN establishment next Of Kin
In seven days wonder. We were MOI
unmindful Of the existence of an element
in our midst which would be impatient d
the restraints which party discipline i'm.
poses. but We never dreamed that il could
call to its leadership such names ss are sp.
pended to the paper in question. or tha
II would receive the eountenance and sup.
port Of any gentleman who bad been &c
tively identified with our late Convention
That II has been able to do %, Is. to rs, q
matter Of mysterious establishment. and q
source Of the deepest solicitudc and regret.
We shall decline to make comment. how.
ever. upon the individual action Of any
gentleman connected with the card before
NJ. but proceed to review Of the propo-
si,ions it maintains.
After preamble. which rests its chief
claim to our attention upon its near ap-
proach to the style Of the Declaration Of
Independence. the card asserts it to be
1.-THE fundamental right. in a republican
Government. Of every member to partici-
pate equally in the selection Of public ser
wants to represent them-it is the corner
stone Of Democracy"
We have no exceptions to make to this
paragraph. apart from the abstract and
meaningless vasaries it presents. 1t is.
at best. but "glitteriug generality" and
would be more in place. as "new depar-
turc" dodge in some sensitive locality. than
as reason to assign for boiling Conven-
tion. In what manner is it pertinent to
the issue before MS Docs the Conven-
tion system deny this fundamental right
and was it no. exercised by at least three
fourths Of the democracy Of the county. at
the primary elections which preceded the
Convention? What Independent claim has
it. then. upon the support of the people ?
and why this attempt to humbug aud mis-
lead them
The next paragraph. however. contains
matter Of graver import, and demands at
our hands more extended notice. That
We may deal fairly with it, we give it rer-
basim:
"For over fourteen years the Democratic par
~ Of this county have disapproved of Conven-
lions for local Offices as fruitful source Of mis-
representation. fraud, discord and disorganizs-
ton. In 1855 1t was fairly tested before the
people "for or against Convention" and was
voted down by a large majority. Is il not thea
gross innovation and an assumption Of power
by the State Central COMMITTEES conceded 10
have no legitimate authority, to rsrerse tkis SOL
smn Judgment Of hs psopieF II DISCRIMINATION
should exist In the party, Is not this the intia-
tory step? II this Convention has been called
without proper authority, against usage, sprung
upon the party over four months in advance of
the election, hurriedly put through against the
protest Of very large number ofold Democrats.
representing majority Of the party and unfair
means taken and carried out to suppress the voice
Of the people-rhe arc responsi6le The old
Democratic usage, TO nominate by mass meet
ings. has been offered TO them and rejected 10
put the question before the people for or against
Convention has been rejected TO let the party
vote directly for the candidates has also been re-
jestsd, as well Ms all Efforts at eonspressise."
We do not deny that. in 1857. the dem.
ocratic party Of this county refused to
sustain the nominees of q Convention
nor do We deny that. in 1850, the people
Tcpcdisted a call for . Convention. In
the former case. il We remember Alright,
the chargs of fraud was the objection in
the latter, it was urged. that as there was
then no opposing element in the county
which could muster sufficient strength to
jeopardize the success Of the party, il was
unnecessary and incxpcdient to limit the
number Of candidates for popular favor.
From the latter time, to the late primary
meetings. the question has never been sub
ni,tcd to the people. nor would the Cen
trail Committee have then presented il. bu.
for the altered political complexion Of the
county. The necessities of the party de-
nsnded its thorough organization and jus
tilted the Committee in the course they pur-
sued. The people Of the county arpreei-
sssd the necessity and sustained the Com.
nittss BY their action Al the ballos-box.
How, then. can il be claimed that the
Committee have assumed unauthorized
rewerf and that they have rerersed The
so'e"s" Judgment Of the psep'ef II disor-
ganisasion and disaster shall befall the
party. the sin is not upoa the shoulders Of
the Central Committee. but upon the fac
tious minority who have rebellsd .gains. il.
But. was there authority for the call Of
The Convention Our understanding of
the powers vested in The Central Commit
ses may BE- little too expansive 10 suit
the present purposes Of some wenben Of
cur party. bot we claim 10 Be sufficiently
Jealous Of ell sucroachmenss spos our
rights. We recognise. 10 the fullest a.