Whig and tribune. [volume] (Jackson, Tenn.) 1870-1877, 1873-08-16
The jackson Convention.
Letter from Hon. Kenneth Ray.
ncr.

From the Memphis Appeal
EDITORS APPEAL There seems
to exist such misrepresentation, in
certain quarters, in regard to the
aims and ends of the convention
lately held at Jackson, Tennessee,
in reference to "the new State"
movement, that ], as the presiding
member of that body, feel called on
to say a word, with view TO put
ting public opinion right. am not
willing that the readers of the three
Journals designateds should be mis-
led in regard to the object of that
assemblage and the composition of
its members. 1 therefore appeal to
the authorities of the three journals,
and their sense of Justice and fair
play, to allow the convention to be
heard, through one of its mem
bers.
In the first place, with sensation
Introductory heading, the conVen-
tion is pronounced "A FAILURE :"
and it is with that stereotype desig-
nation they continue to allude to il.
The question OF what force or pow
er there is in the collection ofR few
pieces Of capital-letter loaded type
is, whether they express q word,
which stands as the ''sign of an
idea,". based on fact and tristh.--
The convention, whether in num-
bers, character, or extent of terri
tory represented, was anything but
''a failure" There were about two
hundred elegates-enough in all
conscience. In character, it was a
remarkably respectable, intelligent
and orderly body of men, True,
there we're very few professional
politicians or aspiring men there-a
fact / heard frequently commented
on-not q great many lawyers, but
taking them as a BODY, / never saw
more dignified, sensible, and we'll
behayed set of men. Twenty-three
of the forty-One counties included
in the territory of the proposed new
State were represented-thirteen
from Tennessee, instead of four as
has been stated in several papers.
That was far more than / expected
to see represented, considering that
the subject had not been more thor
oughly agitated. 1 never heard of
the convention until about ten days
or two weeks before it met. In
many counties doubt whether il
was known to the public generally.
That Is, perhaps, the incident con-
nected with it that is mOst to be re-
gretted-or rather, it l0OHld be, if
the convention had designed doing
anything more than it did do. II
the convention had been
CALLED TO MAKE A NEW STATE,
er to put in operation the machine
ry NECESSARY TO the accomplishment
of that object, then it would have
been q "failure." But the conVen-
ton met for no such purpose. 1t
met for the purpose of eliciting an
expression of public opinion, and of
discussing and comparing the rea-
sons for and the objections against
the enterprise of forming a new
State. Well, what was the result? :?
1t did all 1T proposed doing, aud adj
| journed. What did it dos 1t took
steps for still further ascertaining
public opinion, of responding to il
when expressed, aud for calling
another convention, ii necessary, at
future day. And yet, because, as
! it would seem, this convention did
not form constitution, and appoint
commission to confer with con-
gress, and other commissions to con-
fer with the States interested, il is
called "a failuFe." Jglging from
! the blows which some Journals con-
tinue to strike it, it would seem that
it tried TO do something which it
failed to do. 1t did not meet to
form constitutions, lay down party
platforms, or nominate candidates
for Office, and consequently it did
none of these things. Neither was
it failure from want of harmony,
/ from want of earnestness and ener-
gy, or from want of determination
of purpose to carry out the object
of aseertaining public opininn With
reference to future action. 4 more
harmonious set of men never saw
assembled together. There was no
Outcropping Of selfish or local in
terests or schemes, no grinding Of
Appeal, Avalanche and LedgeF.