The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1872-08-17

CONGRESS-.


MEsans. EHuoEs. In your paper Of the 9th
ult., writer over the signature OF "Nos Mons
SoLuN," very properly comments upon the pre-
sumptious remark Of writer in the fowson-
town Jaarhal, who over the signature of .'Om-
MIA Yerstash advocates the recollection Of the
Hon. stevenson Archer. The writer referred
to, speaking Of MI. Archer, says, at Is the
height Of folly for aay one to make an issue
against him" Strange doctrine truly rs
pecially for one who Processes 10 be Demo-
cratl l have known Mr., Archer all his life
and his father before him. | know him TO be
an excellent, honest man, "the worthy son OF
an honored siru,n and both Of them popular
leading Wings Of Hartford county. The con-
duet Of the latter during his three terms In
Congress has boen unexceptionable, but with
all this insist upon II, that we have In Carroll
men as good, and as capable Of representing
the District Ia Congress, as Mt. Archer 1
cannot imagine upon what principle "0nA'd
Yerifds' asserts his right 10 speak Tor the '.pso-
pie Of Carroll Cosaiy. Even IL Mr.. Archer
were life-loag Democrat, enjoying national
reputation, ami sndeared to the Democracy
By the most brilliant talents; yet Il would be
presumption to say that he mast be sent the
fourth time TO Congress and that II would be
"the height Of folly for any one 70 make an
issue against him." In fact, Mr.. Archer wont
to Congress In the 6rst Instance upon plea
which Il at present singularly applicable 20
Carroll County. In 1861 shortly after the
breaking out OF the war, and when Federal
bayoaets perambulated every part Of the city
of Baltimore, and tho party in power arrested
whomsoever they pleased, it became necessary
to elect member Of Congress. g. &. Loary
was nominated by the Radicals, several Dem
oersts were solicited To oppose him but each
gave their reason FOR declining the chances Of
"A fo:t-eompaniOnship with John herryman
and others. The old war-horse WIN. 2. Pres
ton was the only man who expressed willing
ness to lead the torlorn hope of the Democracy,
and bravely did he do Il. We all know that
in the teeth Of intimidation and danger, no
carried the municipal portion OF the District
by majority OF between three and four hun
dred. In the enthusiasm of that hour il was
generally conceded that Mr.. Preston's Intrepid
ity fairly entitled him 10 nomination at the
next term The next term arrived, and then
Mr.. Areher's friends brought him forward on
the plea, that by the usages OF the Democratic
party, Hartford County WAS entitled to the nom
nation. With the concurrence OF Mr. Pres
ton, his friends In the Convention admitted the
ruth Of the plea, and Mr. Archer was nomi-
mated aud elected. In 1866 the lower wards
OF Baltimore were under the control OF Mr..
Edwin webster, former lawpartner oil Mr..
Archer, and Collector Of the Port. Mr.. Archer
was nominated a end time and again elected.
Ii Z unnecessary TO refer TO the political ieuds
which distracted Baltimore County In le6s,
suffice Il to say the time honored usage which
gave Baltimore County right similar to thal
which Hartford County had insisted on, was
dispensed with and Mr.. Archer a laird time
nominated and returned to Congress. Now
the period of nomination has again ars!ved
and we are grayely told we must send Mr..
Archer to Congress the fourth time, and that
it would DO 'the height Of folly for any one 10
make an issue against him." Why not pass a
resolution declaring that each succeeding
election during the life time Of Mr. Archer, it
shall be incumbent upon the Democratic party
to send him to Congress. lit would be the
against him now, 1t would equally be folly to
\ do so hereafter. ''NoS soBIs soLUN" has justly
said, "RotatiOn in office is good Democratic
doctrine" and 90 the faith fit. | would re-
specially ask, has not Cecil or Carroll now
| the right to insist on the enforcement Of the
/ Hartford County rule, under which Mr.. Archer
was first nominated. FAIR Play.