Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-05-31

, nation the idea that any memoer VI '"e ~ ~ :,
mar,y would be guilty Of such m act lie held tha'
hos, and the lowest member Of that party were
'"e "s ,hovs such a species of deception Such .
.tHonab, had never entered his mind and never
would . or ,bo HILL for IN.
accommodation of the Convention, oe.'s re,;.,
SUGGESTION was made BY member, lhat inc IohVeho'
aanrn to afford the Committee an opportunity 10 con
Jmc, tle business 10 which they were appointed ant
iba, the Committee Of Reception be requested TO pro
vide in the mean time, more coilou'ou' fnl'' o' v"
future slings of the Convention.
Al, Iohn Ee,tlewell. Of the Committee OF Recep
zion rcsnonded to these remarks, stating, mat ever
noss;be attention had been given 10 inns mat'eV a'
a1,ressne his belle that more suraoie Piace co"'
at 10 nhi,ined And if it could, there was no mean
~ notifying the members of the Convention IN iime io
their re-assembling OF the pace sei'I n WIN ~
ad n the disorder which prevailed he Thought ina
shs rnIes which the Convention might adopt Tor III
aoornmant would do more 10 effect that object, that
anv increase of space for its Deliberations ;,
a. motion was then made, at hall past one O'Clock
TO adjourn until four o'clock, I. W. WHICH was Cd
| red
Tho Convention met, pursuant TO adjournment a
A oclock. The chairman called the assembly 10 or
dor The first business was the report OF me com"
roo On The delegations and credentials, but Inc cbalf
man of that committee not oeing ,eaay 70 lePoi,
snsu.d which was employed by Mr. Hammet, OF Miss,
- son,s remarks upon the necessity OF excluding from
no enor All ersons who not delegates to the Con
vention The suggestion was mace ID view OF 'a'
safely which might be endangered by 'he ADMISSION o
,hs crowd which would otherwise throng inc iioor.-
There had been considerable alarm a. l,e wing ~"
vent,on in consequence Of apprehended TALL OF the
house and if peigM be considered IN view OF ,he
orbsc, certainly there is more cause oil apprehension
| from the far soughier body now present
| Mr. IIarker of the committee OF reception, stated
that arrangements had been made 10 'hai ehee'
1 ctnr
would be admitted to any portion of the hall ~" occil-
MED by the convention; if gentlemen desired TO e1-
lude ihem il could be better accomplished by address
inc them m front Of the house, on The great principles
of tie Democratic party
Mr.. Hopkins OF Va, thought would be best 10 cN-
clude all persons from the hall not entitled 10 ADMISSION
as delegates. -,
II was finally concluded TO lay The matter over nnlIi
Mo convention should have decided on the rules for lis
regulation 49,, e.,.o,oa Cor Nr
Frazier that he might address the multitude before Inc
house. Granted.
Judge Bfedon of Pennsy lvania then submitted re-
solution providing for the appointment Of Committee
IN select permanent officers for the Convention when
was subseouently laid on the table for the time be-
ing. ,.,..
In The absence of the Secretary TO the Committee,
Governor Hubbard, the Chairman, made verbal re-
port 10 the effect, that the Committee were unah'-
inousy of opinion that the persons now IN attendance
claiming to be members of the Convention were justly
entitled to their seats as such From some states Tue
representation not great as The number aiiotleo
to them lie mentioned ts in the absence oil the ini
report in order that the Convention might be enabled
TO proceed with such business came before II, with
out waiting the arrival of the Secretary TO the Commit
tee.
Ijpon motion, the resolution of Judge Bredon was
taken taken up and passed.
Mr. Br.don then moved further, that the States be
49, t,oo al dol AIMS M
10 compose the committee, which was agreed 10, and
the following gentlemen were named
Messrs Nathan Clifford OF Maine; Ira Eastman oil
New Hampshre Mr.. Abbott Of Massachusetts; David
p Moves Of Vermont; Ilezekiah Willard OF Rhode
Island Noycs Billings of Connecticut; Erasus Corn-
ing of New York; James NJ. Hartshorn Of New Jer-
sew John r. Shannon of Pennsylvania Philip +.
Thomas of Maryland VIM. H. Ross OF Delaware ;
Thomas j. Randolph of Virginia Mr.. Blunt oil North
Carolina Walter D. Coquitt Of Georgia; Peter WI
Iiams Of Alabama; Jacob Thompson oil MISSISSIPPI
Gilbert Leonard Of louisiana Is. Brown oil tennessee
Richard French of Kentucky Edward Cross OF Arkan-,
sas Samuel Medary OF Ohio; William A. Bowlcs oil
Indiana David Buckmaster of Illinois; John Miller OF
Missouri; Orrn Is. Dibble of Michigan The Commit
tee thus constituted retired 10 a in another part
of the building to prepare their report
MIR. Hubbard, upon the part OF The COMMITTEE SUD.
mitled report in writing, upon the business entrusted
TO them, showing the number OF delegates each State
was entitled TO- the number in attendance, and those
absent The Report read throughout though o
suggestion was made by Mr.. Hammet OF Mississippi,
that the reading of the names might be dispensed wit
but this was met with cries Of "No no'-'read them,
read them'--from all parts Of the house, and they
were read accordingly.
/, appeared by the Report, that the following are the
numbers in attendance from the several States, VIZ
Maine o; New Hampshire 6; Massachusetts IL !;
Vermont 6; Rhode Island 4 (; Connecticut u New
York SO; New Jersey u Pennsylvania &c; Delaware
=: Maryland 5; Virginia 50; Georgia 10; Alabama .
Mississippi II Louisiana ,; Tennessee 10; Kentucky
90; Ohio 90; Indiana II; Illinois o. Michigan )
Missouri s Arkansas g. The report was then unanl
nously adopted.
vously offered by Mr. Saunders, of North Carolina,
that The rules and regulations adopted by the Demo-
cratic Conventions Of 1889 and 1885, be The rules and
regulations Of this Convention, except as TO the ap-
polntment of its officers, now brought forward and
elicite d sharp debate
Mr. Walker of Mississippi rose TO spenk to The mo-
ton He referred to the proceedings OF the conVen-
tons of SO aud 50, as published officially in Niles Re
rster The wc-:hird rule had prevailed on those &C.
casions, and why should it be abandoned now Upon
the suits of the deliberations OF those conventions
the flag of the Democracy had been carried on 10 VIC
tory The nomination OF General Jackson IN 81 v uau
been by reclamation; but the nomination oil the vice
President the two-hd rule had been adopted, and
Mr. Van Buren, had been chosen. In the convention
OF May g 1886, the two-ihlrd rule had also preVaeo
upon q reconsideration oil the vote of Inc PreceuinR
day, making the nomination by majority II should
be plainly understood the gentleman continued, mat
the majority in the convention represented but m'no
rity of the Democratic party. The States oil ~ iofS
Pennsylvania Ohio, and one or two Others exhibited
majority Of votes in the convention, but certainly
they represented large minority olhe Democracy; and
if this system is to prevail, the consequence must De
The Reorganization OF the party-its overthrow ana
proslration e opposed departure from the two-lhrd
rule es nm abandonment of Democratic principles 1t
was to resign all the hopes and prospects OF the party
10 The control of minority, and could but terminate
in disore anizaion division and defeat; was to send
forth the ag rather the shoud, of the Democracy,
to hopeless struggle amongst the people and TO con-
sgn the Democratic party to the hands OF those whose
motto would appear to be "rule or ruin.
Mr. Saunders Of North Carolina rose to IN examna-
ton of the rules of the preceding Conventions OF 50
and '35 They contained but three propositions; The
first admitted each delegation TO vote in the ConVen-
ton equal to lis vote in the electoral college, the Sc
cond regulated the mode Of casting that vote, either
by divided or united ballot; the third was the two
third principle, principle making the nomination oil
the candidate for the Presidency and Vice Presidency
upon the vote Of two-thrds OF the delegates
in the Convention. Mr.. Saunders asked what there