The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-06-28

no snch stronger reason would uey oo oa,v II might
Convention whTr 5wbat was eertan) should not be re-
nised On other hand we ~ee 'o h ' "a onnosed
cuse delega ,,p ,arf; the enactment of the ndePen
In, treasury; and thar hey were no'' al "o"'' Wv"
body Of 'hs u thus mutually impeached as their
an,sis selected judges what were we 70 90 TO- IVA
vouh,ni} IL appropriate ascertain wDethef "oy nau
considered In good faith by making preliminary IN
% whether they would abide the nomlnaio" ,onal
might Dc ,ha Elimination Of their credentials Il has been
I that no matter which party was adniueo sp
honor 9 9,b, about that But what wanted 70 knSW,
pc ~ wh,i they would do il they were not adnlt'ea
fhsd 10 know whether they would make men aui,s
wished ;cton the te.t of their support OF our nomina
non None OF the rest of as made any such ha,h
esl =, III To- we decided upon their ght TO seats IN our
nyyentioo Before decided upon the question OF anen
kdmssion desired 10 know whether ts ha bas been
Nose OF mischief; and hence we applied Wha has '0s"
% wee % asked why did we not apply it to other dele
The answer is easy and conclusive None OF the
liners were suspected. They all stood unlmpeacnea pc
fore Pma Jaee they had come there 10 ac. m ,r;o
Pnt undertake say, if any other delegation haa peeh
Bmpeached, would have made the same preliminary IN
mGuiry oil lheH' -
These are the reasons that were assigned by the COM
nee for making the preliminary inquiry which they IN
,,,sa But did that committee fail in their duty, as Mr..
w., Rrsn charges, to examine into the facts and re-
-, their opinion upon the conflicting claims referred to
ham,
.n. ..,hat without compliance with this arbitrary
Yaeton they would not even look INTO the merits OF
bsir respective caims~ Let the proceedings OF the con-
sn,on answer We quote from the speech OF the same
gentleman
We did not as seems to be taken for granted by the
,sman from Connecticut, refuse hear the Utica dele
and examine their credentials after they refused 10
answer our preliminary inquiry We did NOT do, nor did
We ever design do any such thing do not know ex-
xc,lv how the resolution is worded-it was written in
hurry: but know what was the purpose OF the commit
s We meant to examine the whole and report all
he facts 1.-THE respective the preliminary nqui
which put among the res) TO the convention where
last we all knew and desired that the maj decision
The Utica delegation entered their protest and withdrew,
,bnut ur,xnng any ereaenfials The Syracuse delega
on read the paper which has already been presented to
he convention, and presented their credentials They
were examined with than the credentials of any
Hher deleg alton and far regards form-with
but the source from whence they emanatedthey
eg s hrn amy onss When hpe ss% o Ae
before u.s. and we reported in favor OF the SYRIA
Euse delegation.
ty in what we did For what were we appointed! Mere
look at BIZ of paper' Anybody could write paper
Ibis convention had raised committee to be appointed
no, by the chair the usual mode With unimportant
Bit Of paper We supposed our duty to be to inquire
the right Of persons to admission into this body and
where doubt was aised for what purpose that admission
asked Suppose delegation of wings from any State
Is, Il
emoeratc delegation; And suppose had been warned
their character Win anybody tell me that we could
pot in deciding upon their right to admission, do more
han examine their papers?
Blu, is said, the test required degrading one,
vi,h which men OF honor could not comply do no, 80
Understand it, | quite that the majority Of that
ommil,ee are sensitive of their honor as any men on
arh; and know that they would not require of others
What, under similar circumstances, they would not per-
orm themselves | believe that the majority of that COM
miee if similar accusations had been made against them,
woud have tonght that their honor required that they
bhond acquit themselves of them 1t Is true, they would
have been mortified that such charges should be made
put this would only have increased the obligation to dis
credit them.
But MI. Van Buren, proceeds:
"Now when it is considered that such pledge was re-
uired at any previous national democratic convention
ron any person-that at OF them the delegates from
ia entire State (Vrginia) permitted announce
heir determination in advance not to support
domination, if it should be made, without causing ques-
bon be raised IN Dgad their seats in the convention
nd that they carried such refusal into full effect without
becng themselves their State the feproaches of
associates in other Sateshat this very convention
onaned without dispute their eligibility delegates
ICON several States who could such pledge
Without violating the instructions of their constituents and
hose intentions not to enter into it were not concealed
used to impose such pledge upon its MEMBERS" &c
In reference to these statements, desire to say in
first place, that there is analogy whatever in the
Virginia case to which Mr. Van Buren, refers, and the
ate case from New York. In that case, the Virginia
Delegation were not impeached, and they did not refuse
when they subsequently Intercepted to say wheth
they would abide by the nominations of the conven-
on,) to answer, and withdraw On the contrary, they
considered it their duty as doubtless it was) to inform
Pie convention, before any ballot was taken, that
here was particular nomination which they could
pot support, if made by the convention and
thus enabled the convention to decide whether was
proper for them 10 participate in its action. The two
Eases, SO far from being analogous, stand in con-
mss to each other; and the authority which Mr..
Van Buren, quotes to all intents and 4urposes, con-
POUNDS him. In the referred to, the Virginia dele
cation, whose good faith unsupported considered it
duty to come voluntarily forward, and to inform the
convention, before it participated in its proceedings rea
Five to the nominations, that there particular gen.
eman who differed with them entirely fundamental
principles, particularly the bank question, that they
gould not support him even if he nominated But
he New York delegation when they openly charged
With seeking admission into the convention, refuse to
ve the convention of the apprehension, honestly enter
aned, that they did not mean to support its nomination.
TIT fall on any one upon whom il likely to fall.
Again: MI. Van Buren, says that the convention Con-
FAMED many members who could not enter into any such
Peoge without violating the instructions of their con-
Notwithstanding, presume, to the instructions of
States to their delegates support no advocate of
ne Wimot Proviso. At any rate, the contingency in
winch these members would bolt was known to the con-
Tenhon; and thus it was placed On its guard But such
was not the case with the New York delegation In this
hsance as IN the last will allow the committee to
speak for itself