The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1884-08-22
The Second District Congressional
Convention

The late Democratic convention for the
second congressional district, after 1 ,4OS
fruitless ballots, adjourned sine die, last Fri
day, ut Baltimore. 1t will be remembered
that at Elkton 1858 ballots were taken with
the same result each time, namely, Talbot
10, Shaw 8, and Hopkins 8. The convention
then adjourned to meet in Baltimore on
Thursday of last week. On that day nine
ballots wele taken, the result being the same
as at Elkton. On the tenth ballot at night
Cecil cast three votes for Talbot and one for
Shaw. On the next ballot Cecil gave Tai
bolt and Hopkins 1, but no other change
was made. On the twelfth ballot the weary
ing vote of Talbot 10, Shaw 5, Hopkins
was repeated Mr.. Caldwell, of Cecil, on
the thirteenth ballot, voted for Constable,
and delegates wondered what was coming
Carroll, at the next ballot, gave Constable
vote and Cecil gave Constable and Talbot
2. On the last ballot Cecil gave Shaw and
Talbott2. No result was reached and the
convention adjourned until Friday morning.
Upon assembling on Friday diversion was
made by Baltimore and Cecil counties cast
ing 10 votes for Mr.. Albert Constable, of
Cecil, the other counties remaining true to
Hopkins and Shaw. This was repeated for
six ballots, when Baltimore county returned
to her first choice, Mr.. Talbot.
AT this point Mr.. VanBibber, of Hartford,
| moved to adjourn sine die. Baltimore and
Hartford voted for the motion and Cecil and
Carroll againstit, but it was carried by II to o.
1t is understood that Baltimore county
offered to unite with Hartford or with Carroll
in nominating Hon. Henry W. Archer, OF
Hartford or Mr.. Frank Brown, of Carroll, but
the delegates from those two counties did
not believe the offer was sincere, and to test
it challenged Baltimore county, whose dele
CATION voted before that of Carroll or Har-
ford, TO cast their votes for Mr.. Archer or Mr.
Brown. They did not dot.
The failure to nominate candidate is a
| modification and disappointment to the
| Democrats of the district. The delegates in
blindly adhering TO certain candidates be-
/
their respective counties is more creditable
to their local pride than to their appreciation
of the duty they were elected to perform
They should have laid aside personal prefer
ences for the general welfare of the district
and State. Surely, in the four counties com
prising the district some Democrat couG
have been found with capacity sufficient tc
represent the State in Congress, and who
would have been acceptable to the Democrat
ic voters ofthe district. The delegates from
Hartford are, perhaps, less to blame thar
those from the other counties. In the dis
tribution of places by the party Hartford
county was clearly entitled to the nomina
ton, provided she presented an unexception
able candidate. This she did, in the person
of Mr.. Hopkins Feeling assured that tn,
claims of their county were valid, her dele
gates had strong grounds upon which t.
urge his nomination. But Harford's claims
were selfishly ignored by the other counties
who could not even agree among themselves
to make candidate without Hartford.
New primaries and a new convention will
be called. The claims of Hartford county
will undoubtedly be rcasserted, and it is Il
be hoped that her sister counties will recog
nize them. But we would earnestly urg,
upon the representatives of the several coun
ties who may be selected for the next con
vention that concession and compromise il
matters not involving principle must be ex
ercised. 1t will never do to have "deat
locks" occur too often. Surely, some gen
tleman of those first named in the conven
ton just adjourned is worthy ola choice bu
if selection cannot be made from them, give
US candidate, gentlemen, who is worthy O.
our suffrages.