Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1876-10-14
THE FULKERsON STATEMENT.

Fol what IS intended to be a grave
statement of alleged grievances, the two
and a quarter columns printed in the
last Register, over P. s.. Fulkerson's
name, is the most vulnerable article we
have eve read. The gist of his COM
plant is that two delegates from 'Sni-a-
bar township, whom he CLAIMS to have
been instructed for him, disobeYed in
structions and voted for Lesueur. He
thinks if these two delegates had obeyed
instructions, he would have received the
nomination, instead OF Lesueur. AS they
disobeyed instructions, he pronounces
the convention a fraud, and decides to
run Independent of it, still claiming to
be a democrat.
To show the ab%surdity of Doctor Full
kerson's position, we take his own ar
guments and use them on the other side.
Middleton township sent certain del
egates to the convention because they
were understood to be for Lesueur.
Two of them at least disappointed the ex-
pectations of those who sent them, and
voted orFulkerson. Now if the delegates
from both Sni-a-bar and Middleton
had observed the wishes of their
constituents, it is clear that Lesueur
would still have received the nomi-
nation.
Does the Doctors mode of arguing
seem as convincing to him when used
on the Lesueur side? What is sauce for
the goose is said to be sauce. for. the
gander.: Will this sauce do for both
birds? If Doctor Fulkerson believes in
his own arguments, he will withdraw
as soon as he sees how he has been stul-
hfying himself. But he does not believe
In his own arguments-at least we have
been accustomed to think him a man of
too much %clearness of perception to be
imposed OF by any such trashy bosh and
nonsense. He will have to demonstrate
why Sni-a-bar ought to have obeyed,
and why Middleton ought not to have
obeyed, before his mode. of reasoning
will hold water.
But it is patiently ridiculous to argue
this question from any such stand
point. When the people pass their
power into the hands of delegates it is
authority for those delegates to act for
them. The delegates are the agents of
the people, and the people are morally
bound by what they do. If the delegates
betray trust, the people can hold them
accountable, but they can no more, in a
moral point of view, repudiate their
acts than they can repudiate the laws
passed by their delegates in congress-
than Il principal "a repudiate the acts
OF an agent to whom he has given power
of attorney. We believe that if the
detection of the delegates from
Middleton had resulted in Fulkerson's
nomination, Captain Lesueur would
have been found, to day, using his best
efforts to procure his election. Neither
would he have felt justified in quarrel
ing with the delegates. For their acts
good or bad. they are accountable only
to those who sent them.
Further than this: we hold that in.
structions- are an expression of the peo-
pies choice; nothing more. 1t often
happens that a ''frst choice" cannot be
had. Then. unless delegates are cloth
ed with some discretion, they are a ci.
pher in the convention.
As we understand F%ulkerson's reason.
ing. delegates are SO strictly bound up
that, if the first choice should die. or be
found ineligible. or should stand nc
chance OF election. their office is gone
| We do not believe this to be true. We
believe that they are the chosen agents
OF the people, selected because of theil
supposed Judgment, discretion and trust.
worthiness. sad that every delegate SO
chosen is entitled tc vote in convention
81