The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1876-07-13
Congressl0naf

tGreenhrier Summers ana Moafoe,
Gust AZ the late State Convention,
againstthe Capital resolution.
Hew far thisfeport is true, orhow
Jar it WIS Originated and kept atloat
by the friends ofthe two rival candi.
dates 81 Mr., Hereford for their own
IbeneGt we do not know, butthe cigi-
zens 81 Charleston and Kanawha
cour Should be cautious how they
allow cir prejndices to be excited
by interested and personal represen-
ations.
- fiarnfon ,gs hEndTeaso Of miles
away, at The Aational Capital, stick.
ing tohis post, and did not seek by
his presence at the Convention to
shape its action for his own political
benefit. 1t strikes us, as unjust and
unfair to blame Mr.. Hereford in any
way for the votes cast in the State
Convention. For the purpose of sus-
tanning this assertion, we ask our
Kanawha friends to turn with us to
proceedings of the late Convention,
Greenbrier cast six votes for, and
nine against the. Capital resolution;
Monroe seven and one-half for and
one and a half against; Summers one
for, seven against, (all presumed to
be Hereford countics) making 144
votes for and III against the resolu-
tion. Fayette cast three votes for
and six against, Jackson cast four
for and six against the resolution, in
which counties Walker and Kenna
claim TO have more votes than Here
ford-making in both counties seven
votes for and twelve against the reso-
lntion. Now we ask our friend in
Kanawha and elsewhere, lift isright
to charge the responsibility of the
votes in the first named counties to
Hereford, upon the same principle
are not Walker and Kenna charge
able with the votes of the two latter?
If Mr.. Hereford is made responsible
when he was not present, and had no
opportunity to consult his friends,
are not Messrs. Walker and Konna
dQubly responsible, when they were
both present, consultingand advising
with their friends? 1t will be seen,
and must be acknowledged at once
by eyery fair-rninded man thateithg
Dr. their a. 4 sea
sostIhg upon all three of the candi-
dates, or else there is none on either
of them, and this we think to be the
only true and manly conclusion that
can be reached.
In our humble and honest opinion
the votes cast in the State Conven-
ton were conscientiously given by
the delegates in what they conceived
to be the best interest of the Demo
cratic party of the whole State, and
had nothing whatever to do with the
Congressional race in this district
The people of this part of the district
are as true friends of Charleston as
can be found anywhere, and have al
ways stood by her, and will continue
to do so, for we think u gross and foul
outrage was perpetrated, not only on
the people of this district, but upon
the whole State, when the Capital was
removed from Charleston, and we
never intend to rest until the wrong
is righted. But surely we should
be allowed the privilege ofexcrcising
our own judgment as to the best
means of accomplishing this result,
and we earnestly protest against the
trickery and demagoguery which
seeks to drag this matter into the
Congressional race, and call upon the
honest men of the Democratic party
to condemn it in a most positive
manner. The questions for us to
consider in selecting a man to repre-
sent us in Congress are who can be
of most service and true benefit to
our district, State and country at
large, and at the same time be most
certain of election after he is nomi-
mated. 1t is well-known and indis-
putable fact that Frank Hereford has
made us n tip-top representative, he
is the only man whoever secured any
thing from the general Government
for our district. No man can urge
anything against his conduct while
in Congress. He has acquired ex-