Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1848-07-14
VOLUME II--NUMBER 10.

who claimed TO represent New York in the Con.
yenlion, or their friends who approved Of their
conduct, casting reproach upon their opponents
for not sustaining the Democracy Of BODY,
whose action in regard to their own State, they
had respectfully formed aud expressed the opin.
ion TO which have advered, must, il seems to
me, be regarded as very extraordinary occur
renee IN politics.
Ii was plainly the duty Of the committee on
credentials, TO examine into the facts and report
their opinion upon the conflicting claims refer.
red to them. ltis an indispulable fact, that in.
stead of doing so, 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 resol.
we'd that without compliance with this arbua.
ry exaction, they would not even look into the
merits of their respective claims.
Now when il is considered thatnosuch pledge
was required al any previous National Demo-
cratic Convention from any person-that at one
of them the delegates from an entire State (Vir-
gnia) were permitted to announce their deter
minalion in advance not to support a certuin
nomination, if il should be made, without caus-
ing question TO be raised in regard TO their seats
in the Convention, and that they carried such
refusal into full effect without subecting them.
selves or their State to the reproaches of their
associates in other Slales-lhaI this very Con-
vention contained, without dispute as 10 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 it, were not
Iconcealed-lhat the Convention ilsef had pre-.
vously and expressedIy refused to impose such
pledge upon its members, and that on the very
committee, which so imperiously demanded it
from the New York delegates, there were MEM
bers who openly denounced lis eXaction as an
outrage-declared their utter unwillingness to
take il themselves, and also, were nevertheless
recognized as eligible and fit members of the
lConventon-when these things are considered,
is it possible that any right minded citizen among
US, can fail TO regard this treatment Of the New
York delegates, as an indignity TO them, and 10
their State, Of the rankest character! If it is
our misfortune to live in community with whom
II is necessary 10 resort to argument to prove
this, whose minds do not rush 10 that conclusion
al the mere presentation of the subject, it is of
very little importance to us what is said or done
IN Democratic Convention. Others may think
differently, and have neither the right nor The
disposition, to become their accusers. Butspeak-
iEg for myself, and formysell only, lido not hes
ate to say, that the Representatives of the rad
cal Democracy of this State, were entirely
right in their appreciation Of the treatment they
= received; and inthe course they adopted. Were
$ | to advise them or those whom they represent
q ed 10 any steps which would indicate the slight
! est insensbity on our part TO the degrading
IJ;a,;ro,;o, IL, ;oI ,h I
my best judgment be counseing them, to an ac
v Of political dishonor, by which they would just.
4 ly forfeit the respect of all upright minds God
n forbid that should be induced, by any consId.
i Grafton, to leave my memory exposed to the i'm
4 putation Of having made so poor return for a
whole life Of public lavors received at their hands
= The committee carried out their design to the
r extent of their power, and the question occurs,
s did the Convention itself relieve your delegates
s or yourselves from the injustice Of your com.
: miuee! Most sincerely do ] wish that | could
+ think so. But is that possbe2 That the differ.
r ence between the TWO delegations was irreconci.
y liable, was apparent to that body, nor was there
i room for moments doubt that at least one O
I the delegations would not attempt 10 represent
: the State, unless their right to do so excasive,
. WIS 6AdlIlluGu anu uCCluCu ny lllt SOuNBUllOn
| and it had not yet become too late for the Con
vention to do its duty in the matter, when it ap
: peared that the resolution moi 10 lake their sea
= was common to both delegations. There wa
g then no other way in which the difficulty coulC
= be properly disposed of, than by examining into
and deciding upon the conflicting claims before
e them. The unavoidable result Of failing to dc
J. so, was to cause the proceedings of the Conven
's ton to be regarded as without any authority il
l. New York. The expedient of admitting botE
delegations mightdo we'll enoughina case where
N the differences between them was not one o
principle, and where both parties finally assent
/, ed to the arrangement, but was wholly inappli
l. cable TO the one under consideration. The mat
II ter was nevertheless so disposed Of New Yorl
+. was allowed double representation with the in
evtable and well understood consequence, tha
l. she should not have single effective vote upo
At the proceedings Of Convention whose deci
is sions she is now called upon to sustain. You
= delegates claimed the exclusive right to repre-
Il sent the Democracy Of this State nthe Conven
II ton, and offered to maintain their title theret
y before that body by documentary proof. Thei
n claim was rejected, and oil what groundl Nc
d certainly on the ground that they were unable t
y sustain it, for their credentials and proof wer
returned to them unopened, and the Conventio
al itself did not profess 10 put the rejection of the
D. demand on any such grounds and yet that wa
S. the only ground on which, if we'll founded, thei
De claim could be properly overruled. It's not
IL be disguised that the belief that your delegate
o. were refused admission on the ground Of tn
,g opinions entertained by their constituents upo
r the question of the prohibition of slavery in tn
g. territories, is very general in this State. Th
K, course of proceeding adopted by the Conver
ID ton, rendels it not little difficult to define wit
Id precision for what particular reason the reiec
g. ton of both sets of delegates by the nominal az
Ve mission of both was ordered. That MANY men
10 bers were not influenced by the considerable
T. referred to, am we'll satisfied, whstit is equa
lr y clear, that the number Of those who wer