The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1886-03-27
THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.
'The Opelonsae Courier, stra4ght-o es
/ Democratic paper and one Of the oldest in
the State, colRnents upon tho Legislative
contest in this parish in manner that may
prove of interest to many of our readers:
Gen. J. l.. Brent is candidate for the Legis
/ lature IN Ascension parish, and the Donald
sonvilte Desnocrut says that his election is 9
foregone conclusion. Mr.. Gus. Israel how.
/ ever, IL a candidate for the same position, and
seems to think that his chances of success are
pretty good. Both are Democrats. we believe
but ten. Brent was nominated by 4he Demo.
Republican Parish Comhittee,w while Mr.. Israel
/ Yho correctly s1sRou, ces such nomination as
/ undemocrtI.lc. is making an independent can
vass.
according to the general usage and SEN
/ timent of both parties the principle of com
mittee noAs1E atoms is an improper one,
and especially so when, as in the instance
in question, the committee Us not only an
! old one, but is largely self-constituted, a
number of its members having been eho-
| sen by the remaining members to fill va
| cancies occasioned by designations, expul-
sions. etc, and others being men who were
| defeated by the voters Of their wards at the
last election held for delegates to parish
convention.
It is commended, on the other hand that
there was no expressed demand or desire
for congention among the Democratic
voters of the parish, land it may be re-
marked, en- passant, that the same state of
feeling seems to have existed in the Repub-
lican ranks); that it was deemed best, by
common consent, to forego the trouble,
expense and delay of electing convention
to nominate a single candidate, and that
one for an unexpired term and, finally,
that Mr.. Israel, himself member Of the
committee, not only made no objection to
its proposed action, but was in full harmony
Herewith until after it became apparent
tilas Gen. Brent and not Mr.. Israel would
be the committees NOMINEES.
We think there is no doubt that MIR.
Israel was badly treated in the premises :;
that he was led or at least permitted to
believe up to the last moment, that he
would be Endorsed or nominated by the
committee, and was wholly unprepared for
the embarrassing position in which he
found himself when it became clear that
another candidate was to be favored. We
think also that majority of the commit
tee were at first favorable to his indorse-
ment, and that the reasons which induced
change of policy in this particular we're
not personal to him, but the indignation
which he and mis- itlends feel over the man
ner in which he was slaughtered ito
use his own expression-is natural and to
be expected. Had he been consulted and
advised of the circumstances which seemed
to make the selection of another nominee
advisable, the chances are he would have
consented to forego his own honorable as
piratious aud joined with his friends in
supporting the committees nominee.
We are quite sure, however, that Gen.
Brent was in no manner privy to or cogni-
zant of any deception that may have been
practiced upon Mr.. Israel. AS the General
states, in his letters of acceptance, he was
not present at the committees meeting,
ana nelLHe- sought, expected or desired
nomination. His selection was evidently
inspired by confidence in his superior
availability, and under the circumstances,
many Democrats who might otherwise be
disposed to support Mr.. Israel as a rebuke
to the seeming treachery of some of their
party leaders, will no doubt lay that score
aside to be settled Oh future occasion and
cast their ballots for Gen. Brent, particu
larly as the defeat Of the latter will by no
means assure the election Of his independ-
ent Democratic competitor.