Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-08-07
THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATES.

LII OohohA"
EDITOR INTELLIGENCER:-My atten-
ton was not called to an editorial III
the Odessa Democrat on the congress
sional matter in time for your last
issue. No II acquainted with the
editor of the Democrat will be sur
prised at the spleen and lll.temper ex-
hibited: they are natural. The ques-
ton in effect asked the Intelligencer
was: Had the democrats of this county
an opportunity to give expression to
their wishes in this matter? The in
quiry was addressed to the Intelligent
Ger. and that paper answered very
clearly nc such opportunity had been
given. The Democrat, though not ad-
dressed, undertakes to reply, as to
which there could be no objection, but
strange as it may appear. instead OF
replying to the question devotes Its
space to the expressed hope of the wri-
ter that as the action vas a usurpation
the people would remember the social
ed delegates who would cast the vote
OF the people in the congressional con-
vention when not authorized by the
people to do go. Now, my dear sir, l
mean the editor OF the Democrat, since
you have condescended to notice the
writer's former effort, may l be per-
mitted to ask you a few questions aud
discuss this matter plainly, yet | hope
co%urteously, for assume, as you con-
cede democrats still have the right OF
petilioning for the privilege of choosing
their candidates, and of candidates but
tonholing certain gentlemen who claim
to be delegates and thus have the pow
er and right to dispose of nominations,
though the people have not elected
them, you will, l trust, grant that all
have the further privilege of discussing
party policy. The question is this:
You and your associates claim the
right to 60 to Kansas City as delegates
and cast my vote, and the vote of every
other humble democrat for a candidate
for congress-. Now, WHEN and WHERE
and HOW did l and other democrats
give you that right? If we v gave
it to you how did you get 1t? If we have
the right in some form to vote on this
question, which you concede, and we
have not voted tory You and your assOci-
ates, o has a single other democrat
ever 80 voted, by what authority or
right do you assume to act for uSY
And if no authority has been given you,
you certainly have none, and in at
tempting to exercise that authority are
you not guilty of usurpatiOn and whom
do you bind by your act? This is the
whole case. I trust you will answer
it; and while these questions are plain
ly put it is not intended to be done Of
fensively; it is but the memorable logic
of the case. And permit me to suggest,
neither is it any answer to cry, IF
Jeffersonian Democrat wishes to point
out the FRO OF the convention why
did he not do so over his W sigma
ture?" Whether ''errors" were COM
United is the issue, and not who the
person may be that points them out.
Suppose if you please "Jeftersonian
Democrat" to be a horse thief or guilty
of all the crimes known to the laws of
the land and to morality Except that of
having as a delegate voted for n man
while Instructed for another), still that
would not weigh n iota in the ques-
ton: By What authority does the Hon.
G. l.. Ewing and others undertake to
cast the vote of Lafayette county in the
congressional c%onvention? This is the
question in which the people are inter-
ested.
Again l suggest, it is not answered
by saying care you, sir, a candidate for
congress? And + you mad because
the delegates elected are not 10 your
liking" l reply there are no "dele-
gates;' none "elected." But does not
the editor of the Democrat see in what
q supremely ridiculous attitude such
interrogatories place him? For sup
pose Jeffersonian Democrat Was a can
didate (Which is not the case) would
he not have an unquestioned right to
be; and then if "mad" (Which is not
true) would he not be justifed2 for he
would have the right to have the peo-
pie pass on his claims. One article in
the democratic creed, as l understand
it, is, that all power emanates from the
people, and the people alone elect del
egates; as viewed by the editor of the
Democrat sometimes individuals may
first decide the question themselves,
that the people do not wish to be
troubled, and then that they will exer
else the right to vote for them. Posi-
bly, the editor of the Democrat is the
better democrat. Though no candi-
date, "Jeffersonian Democrat" does, in
behalf of a purer and better policy,
mean to express, in some form, and in
pursuance of democratic presidents,
his choice for congress. Hasn't he that
right? And what will the editor of the
Democrat do about it? Will he, though
not elected, 60 to Kansas City and cast
my vote for me, though l protest he
has no right to do so, and he himself
admits that legally and according 10
party law he has no such power? The
Hon. C. L. Ewing says if an election is
held he will be there; he does not seem
willing to be deprived of his rights and
does not intend to be; oh no; neither
do /, and l trust the woods are still full
of other democrats who value their priv
ilege of citizenship equally, and who do
not neal that a convention elected for no
such purpose shall assume, and that too
at the command of a congressional
committee which was never elected by
the people and is q mere committee by
~sufferance, to save them trouble by
voting away their rights.
A JE~FFERsoNIAN DEMOCRAT.