The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1848-07-07

vi tHe UeIeHateS from New YORK, mat they
would support the nominee Of the convention
whoever he might be, and resolved that
without compliance this arbitrary exaction
they would not even look into the merits Of
their respective claims.
Now, when it is considered that no such
pledge was reguired at any previous Nation
al Democratic Convention from any person
that at one ofthem, the delegates from
an entire State (Virginia) were permitted 10
announce their determination in advance
not to support n certain nomination, if il
should be made, without causing question
to be raised in regard to their seats in the
convention, and that they carried such re-
fnsal into full effect, without subiectihg
themselves or their state TO the reproaches
OF their associates in other states-that this
very convention contained, without dispute
as 10 their eligibility, delegates from sever
al states who would not enter into it, with
out violating the instructions Of their con-
situents, and whose intentions not TO enter
into IT, were not concealed-that the con-
vcntion itself had previously, and expressly
refused to impose snch pledge upon its
members, and on the very committee,
which had so imperiously demanded il from
the New York Delegates, there were mem-
bcrs who openly denounced its exaction as
an outrage-declared their utter unwilling
ness TO take it, themselves, and who, also,
were. nevertheless, recognised as eligible
and fit members of the convention-when
these things are considered, it is impossible
that any right minded citizen among us,
can fail to regard this treatment of the New
York delegates, as an ihdignity TO them, land
TO their state, of the rankest character. ii
it is our misfortune to live in community
with whom it is necessary to resort TO argu-
ment TO prove this, whose minds do not rush
10 the conclusion at a mere presentation OF
the subject, il is OF very little Importance to
TO us what is said or done in Democratic
Convention. Others may think differently,
and | have neither the right nor the dispGsi-
ton TO become their accusers. But, speak
ing ormyself only, do not hesitate TO say,
that the representatives Of this State were
entirely right in their appreciation OF the
treatment they received, and in the course
they adopted. Were to advise them, or
those whom they represented, TO any steps
which would indicate the slightest insensi
biity on theirpart to the degrading distinc'
ton that was applied TO them. | should in
my best judgment, be counselling them TO
an act ofpoltical dishonor, by which they
would justly forlei, the respect of all upright
minds. God forbid that should be induced
by any consideration, TO leave my memory
exposed to the imputation Of having made
so poor return for a whole lie Of public
iavors received at their hands.
The committee carried out their deSieuto
the extent Of their power, and the question
occurs, did your convention itself relieve
your delegates or yourselves from the inlus-
tce of their committee? Most sincerely do
| wish that could do so. But is this posi-.
Bile? That the difference between the two
delegations was irreconcileablc, was appar-
ent TO that body, nor was there room for a
moments doubt that at least one OF the del
ega,ion would not attempt 10 represent the
state. unless their right 10 do so exclusively
was examined aud decided by the couvel-
ton TO do its duty in the matter, when il
that the resolution not 10 take
their seats was common TO both delegations.
There was no other way in which the diff.
Guilty could he properly disposed of, than Wy
examining into and deciding upon the con-
tlcting claims before them. The unavoidable
result Of failing 10 do so, was 10 cause the
proceedings OF 'he convention 10 oe regard
ed as without authority in New York. The
eNreo'.n' D, a'hi'',lns oolh oeieSa''oIs
','n:I oo WI enough III care M"'ie 'he
"n'cia',,e o,'"ech ,he,' was "c' u,'c VI
P'Inc'Pie anu "nere oo'" pa''ies n'a'iy as
serted 10 'nv arrangement, ou' was Mhoi-
y 'hapnn'cao'e W U'e one "hner eo"Siue'a-
uUh. iue "'at'e, was he'vr'I'tieSs "'>P0S'
Z" Oh new Nork was aiio"tu uouoie
WIN 'le ',,e'"ao'e an" wen
uh"e's'oo" consequences 'a"' sue 'Ii"u'" ho'
nave Nhg'c c"ec'iNe 'o'e upon 'ic pro-
eeeu'"ss o' e,''Neh''oh MnoSe oe'N"''
sue Is no" ca',cu uPoh'o sustain. io"r ue'-
esaeS eia''heo lne exclusive lign' 10 repre-
sen, 'ne democracy Oh tnls s.a.e III me con
Neh''oi' anu o"EIeu 10 ,'ai"'"'n 'he'r 'i'ie
'neTS'o o DC, ',lat oouy oy documentary
proof ihe'r cia'nls was rejected, an" OF,
WI'at GROUND MOI certainty ON Tue ground
'Iat 'hey were ni'aoic 10 sustain u, 'oi ',ei'
. 81 ah" pr"V,s were 'o'ushc" 10 ,,
u.'"' """l'"e"' an" .'e convention" nSei'
I'' ho' profess " put we 'eJceuon Vi 'nt'r
"en'ahu on any sucn S'o"," ahu Set 'ha'
was inc on'y Srouh" on which, ,'"eiI iouhu'
ga, 'nei' 'l'''i's VI F'"p,r! o,c'Iu'ed'
j no, " uc u'SS"iSc" c'"' ,Hc oeici U"'
your "e'' g"cs were refuse" admission on
. .n' Sroutu Oh 'ho opinions entertained Oy
''''' constituents upon '"e P"ts''oh Oh me