Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1848-07-12

whose O00S ue3 tne wrong o. tne1f exctu'
zion; whether at that Of our own delega- !
lion. or Of the Convention. Upon this
point both sets Of delegates claiming to I
New York. although differing in
Ramost every thing else. appeared to have I
in the opinion, that the action i
Of the Convention had been such as to put
Il out Of their power TO participate IN its
without total disregard Of Il
what was due a. we'll to their own honor
q 10 the honor and just rights Of their I
expect thai hero. ut least. the opinion /
against the slightest obligation on the part
Of the democracy Of New York 10 sustain .
tho doi"gs Of the Convention. would be
universal To find either set Of the dele /
gates who claimed 10 represent n. York |
In that Convention, or their friends who /
approved Of their conduct, casting re- |
proach upon their opponents for not sus-
tanning the democracy Of a body. whose
action in regard to their own State, they
he'd respectfully formed and expressed the
opinion 10 which, have alverted, must. il
seem. To mo. be regarded az a very extra
ordinary occurrence in politics.
II was plainly the duty Of the Com
n,ittcc on credentials. u examine int, the
facts and report their opinion upon the
conflicting claims referred 10 III m N is
an indisputable fact, that instead Of doing
90, they required an unqualified pledge
from both sets Of the delegates from New
York. that they would support the nominee
Of the Convention, whoever he might be.
and resolved that without a compliance
with this arbitrary exacsion, they would
not e, en- look into the merits Of their re-
Apective cla ms.
Now when it is considered ii, at no such
pledge was required al any previous Ma
tional Democratic Convention from any
pcrson-that at one Of them the delegates
from an entire State (Virginia) were per-
united to announce their determination in
advance not 10 support a certain nomina-
zion, II IL should be made. without causing
o question TO be raised in regard TO their
seats in the Convention, and that they car
sied such refusal INFO full effect, without
subiecting themselves or their State 10 the
seproaches Of their associates in other
States-thst this very Convention contain
ed. without dispute as to their eligibility.
delegates from several States who could
not enter into such pledge, without viola
ting the instructions Of their constituents,
and whose intentiOns not To enter into ii.
itself had previously and expressly rcius-
sd to impose such pledge upon its mem-
bess, and that on the very committee,
which SO imperiously demanded it from
the New York delegates, there were mem
bers who openly denounced its exaction
as an outraxc-declared their utter un-
willingness to take il themselves, and who,
also. were nevertheless recognized as eli
yible and fit members Of the CONVENTION
when these things are considered. il is
impossible that any right minded citizen
among US. can fail to regard this treatment
II the New York delegates, rs an indign-
" to them, and to their State, Of the rank
est character? II il is our misfortunatc
20 live in community with whom it is
necessary to resort to argument TO prove
lhis, whose minds do not rush to that con-
clusion 1t the mere presentation Of the
subject. IL is Of very little importance to
Us what is said or done in a Democratic
Convention. Others may think different
Nv. and have neither the right nor the
disposition 10 become their accuscrs. But
speaking for myself, and for myself only.
do not hesitate to say. that the rcpresen-
tativcs Of the radical democracy Of this
State. were entirely right in their npprc-
citation Of the treatment they received, and
in the course they adopted. Were l to
advise them or those whom they repre-
scntcd to any steps which would indicate
the slightest insensibility on their part to
the degrading distinction, that was applied
to them, should, in my best judgment.
be counsclling them to an act Of political
dishonor, by which they would justly for
Geit the respect Of all upright minds. God
forbid that should be induced, by any
considerations, to leave my memory ex-
posed to the inPutation Of having made
so poor q return for whole life Of public
favors received at their hands.
The committee carried out their design
10 the extent Of their power, and the ques-
ton occurs, did the Convention itself re-
lieve your delegates or yourselves from
the injustice OF their committee? Most
sincerely do wish that could think so.
hut is that impossiblel That the differ.
cnce between the two delegations was ir-
reconcilable, was apparent to that body.
nor was there room for . moments doubt
that at least one Of the delegations would
their right to do so exclusively was exam
ined and decided by the Convention. and
il had not vet become too late for the Con-
vcntion to do its duty in the matter. when
il appeared that the resolution not to take
their soats was common to both delegations.
There was then no other way in which the
difficulty could be properly disposed of.
than by examining into and deciding upon
che conflicting claims before them. The
unavoidable result of failing to do so. was
to cause the proceedings Of the Conven
ton to be regarded as without authority in
New York. The exPedient Of admitting
both delegations might do well enough in
. case where the difference between them
was not one Of principle, and where both
parties finally assented to the arrangement
but was wholly inapplicable to the one
under consideration. The matter was.
nevertheless, 80 disposed Of New York
was allowed double representation with
- inevitable and well understood conse-