Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-07-24
THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES.

= - AoPAy y Nv oSG w. NotSN khot tLiS
democratic party always gave all its
members an opportunity freely to ex-
press their choice as to party nominees.
At that time l thought you right that
democracy meant the rule of the peo-
pie: but since the action in the congress
sional matter what do you say? For
n 1 hope the people will r~epudiate
the u%surpation and remember the men,
who as delegates CO or otherwise help
ed to carry out the %usurpation.
A JEFFERsoNIAN DEMOCRAT.
We always take pleasure in defend
ing democratic management when we
can. 1t is with sincere regret and sor-
row that we come to the duty of re-
proof or criticism of the party's acts.
In all of our observation of party man
agement in this county the instance
alluded to is the first in which we have
seen a party convention nominate
delegates to another convention with
out the people first having an opportu-
NIFTY to vote upon the question.
We do not impugn the motives of
the congressional committeeman. We
have no doubt that they were sincere
and honest in what they did. We do
not impugn the motives of the delegates
who voted in favor of the action; in
deed, excepting a very few we do not
know who so voted; but that it was
mistaken action we cannot for a
moment doubt. How the committee
on order of business could have provi-
ded for the election of delegates of
which they had no official notification
whatever, and how the convention
could so far forget the rights of the
humblest democrat in the county to
vote upon the congressional conven-
ton, if he desired to do so, we cannot
see. In this respect the very same
thing was done in Pettis county as to
the circuit judgeship, and upon the
strong protest of Judge VIM. Young,
published IN this paper, the action was
re%considered and a new convention
was called.
1t is a dangerous thing to assume to
vote for the people, where they have
not given the authority SO to do. 1t
partakes somewhat of the character of
signing q mans name without his con-
sent.
The very arguments that were used in
favor OF the action are strong reasons
why it should not have been taken. 1t
was alleged that but few persons attend
ed the recent primary meetings. That
is, because only a few persons granted a
certain authority additional and
unceded authority was assumed.
1t was conceded that it was a bad
precedent, and yet for convenience it
was adopted. A bad precedent should
never be sanctioned, at any cost of
trouble, when the peoples rights are
concerned. That the people would
not have turned out for a congressional
convention is only an assumption; no
one Knows. If all the people are given
the opportunity to vote and they fail to
do SO, RELOCATING it to a few, then it is
their fault; in this instance the oppor-
tnnity was withheld. What answer
can be made to two hundred, one hun
dred, or even IL dozen democrats if
they say, IL desired to vote on this mat
ter; why was denied that right?"
The recent convention was called to
elect delegates to the two judicial con-
veDtions and the state convention. On
these things the people delegated to il
their authority. The congressional
question was not her acted upon.
There seems to be a mistaken idea thai
the matter was in the hands of the con.
gressional committee to dispose of as
they saw fit. That is a mistake. ex.
cept insofar as providing a means
whereby the people, the democrats OF
the district, might vote upon it. Thar
has not yet been done in this county.
1t is unnecessary here TO enter into
an argument to prove that under oul
system of government all origina
power is vested in the people. To be
used in representative capacity, it mus
first be delegated. The delegate is no,
a delegate until he is invested with the
power by the people. We do not charge
collision, fraud or intended wrong upor
anyone. Indeed we are satisfied tina
neither the committee mol the conven
ton desired to do anything illegal
Were q new convention called WE