The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-10-27
GOH,, PATTON ARID THE CITIZENS.

Allow me, Mr.. Editor as an old Democrat
to my opniofH On the da lssue between
Gel Patton h and ae otzens haxa
The Citizens Committee nominated Col. Pat
ton, as they undoubtedly had the right to 90
Had they been content with this and with the
publication Of the fact. We presume Col. Patton
would not have been called on, unexpected, to
write a letter of .declination;;, No nominee q
nnv class or portion of the Citizens can, with
propriety or due respect for the rig hts OF ctl-
zena. reject the votes of, citizens who ofter TO
vote for him. nomination hn II mere n tr proel;hm
fion to vote for the person named. It is the un-
questionable right of the, Citizens to vote for
any person they choose. Because citizen has
been nominated by another party Of citizens
places him under no obligation to decline the
Nomination or the votes of other cltzens oi
eyen nntag0nistio views and policies. Ethl-
cally considered such nomination and voting
ought to be regarded as surrender OF their
antagonsm and a, recognition OF me ne, sound
ness OF tho principles and the personal fitness
Of the nominee. This question arose and was
much debated in the memorable presidential
nominated John Tyler with q distinct under
standing that he was and always had been op-
posed to a National Bank. When, by a Proyi-
Presidency and vetoed bill to re-establish
National Bank the Wbigs found themselves
estopped from oil complaint OF inconsistency
less. denounced with great virulence as n rene
gade to the party which elected him. But M
Tyler's reply, and it was notably that Of Daniel
well known to the party which voted for him,
and he had not the right or the power YER to @ reject
votes On the tsa prnep9 oo a5e1 tbe9
had been content with his simple nomination,
and had not formally commun9lcated to .Itd9 Am
his acceptance of the same, under an accepted
recognition OF principles and ideas, which ne
could not, consistent with his previous declara-
formally approved Both parties, therefore.
Violated the prudent warning OF the old Ken Zen.
tueky potlcian to yopng aspirant t2r hp p9ItI 2
zens wrote a letter which was unnecessary. and
forced Col Patton to write reply, which was
honest and honorable intent. They had no right
TO ask for his acceptance of q nomination they
had made in the exercise of their unduestionable
pleased and he had no right to reject or decline
their nomination and their votes. Ihe motive
which prompted Col. Patton's letter, the honor
able one of avoiding oil future misunderstand-
showered upon Mr.. Tyler--would have been
more satisfactorily indicated in aletter couched
" Genilemen-I am highly nattered by your
nomination, the more So, as you know that
With With distinct avowal Of my acceptance Of the
platform OF that party and my adhesion to its
principles policies and usagesT yours hn 1aft etG
ground of complaint to, any party. 1t would
Fave prevented tho unpleasantness created by
the last letter OF the ozens when mRaTs fro TO
my nv knowledge noVy Of him from 5oyhood up. are
foreign to his character and his principles. His
defense Of the necessity 4t the manenanee n Of
State. will never rest upon such ignobIe
grounds as those Imputed, of subordinatlng the
Interests of this corporation to the advance
ment of the ends Of political partisan. His re-
nudiatlon Of the same should silence such un-
worthy suspicious. while, his declination Of a
nomination oughtto be set down as of no v!alidi-
ty or effect whatever In preventing any citizen
from voting for him, II they should deem him
worthy of tho office for which he ,,r has IS, been
named VETERAN.