Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1848-06-08
q Ling pIosssds o s..as shs s.sd.a,I. Of shs syra-

STATE Desgafes.-Danel s. Dickinson Henry A. Foster
alternaes, Lorenzo B. shepard, Aaron Ward.
District Deegafes-Henry Landon C. s. Bogadus, Eman
uel b. Hat, Edmund s. Dfigg David c. B,oderek John
man, James B. Howe LYMAN Tremain Job Person Edwin
Croswel, 0rvile Clark, Stephn Griffin Thomas J. Marvin,
Nathaniel s. Benton Phander Robbins Jesse C. Dana John
Sryker Joseph Peck, Elisha B. Smith, Abraham Grant,
James Lynch, Michael s. Myers, Darius A. Ogden Caleb
Fairchid, Joseph Sbey George r. Parburt Jesse ADge
o. Daughaday, Henry X Smith, Joel 5. Smith, Reuben
Resolved That the said delegation from the of New
York designated by the Of the Syracuse and Albany
delegation, entitled to seats in this Convention.
Die. CambTeeng said that the Utica delegates did not
present credentials because the committee refused TO
amineLe until they had given The pledge exacted by
tTl Committee. Never would that delegation come into
the any other terms than those upon winch
the other delegates had been admitted. He proposed
that their should be received by the conven-
tion and they received accordingly
MIR Toucey offered resolution TO refer the whole sub
ieet back the committee.
Mr. Toucey felt it due to the democracy Of
the whole country to make this proposition-due to the
State which had been the OF securing the election
Of the present Chief Magistrate of the UnIonthat state
whose avorte had been deprived oil his nomination,
made by majority of The convention OF lo44, but who,
notwithstanding, had given their support to the nominees
OF that convention and not only tins, but had nducet
another of her distinguished not exceeded 10 talents
ability and integrity by any other this Union TO
accept nomination he did not desire, aud carry The
nominees of the Baltimore Convention forward to success
upon his shoulders
And this is the State from whose delegates it is pro-
posed require pledge support the nominations be-
fore their credentials examined lie then proceeded
to review the proceedings Of the committee ut some
length defend their right be heard and TO have
their claims decided by the convention.
Mr. Bayev of Virginia, felt constrained to resist the
proposition of the gentleman from Connecticut He had
no objection re-comm but he felt it due to the
mee, of which he member, to say, that the gen.
had entirely misunderstood their proceedings Be-
fore that committee of the eloquent addresses
that he heard from the lips of man, member had
appealed to both sets to settle their own difficulties
The reply that it useless TO refer the matter
back to them with any hope of adjustment And then
it that the proposition made that each delegation
should abide the decision of the committee, &c.
He did not consider under such circumstances, the
qurng of pledge as condemnlng either delegation in
advance.
He would require the same from any member of bis
own delegation under similar circumstances. No man
had been required to make sacrifice of his principles
No supposed that the great leading doctrines of the
party to be upset by any such test 1t was proposed
a test to the than the other 1t was adj
med that if YOU let either in they bound by
the proceedings of the convention. But the committee
wished to know, IN advance, what grounds each were
to come in
The committee thought they had right to 60 farther
than their papers, and know whether they desired 10
make support of the nominees of their admission
The mere credentials proof of orthodoxy. Meet
ings might be got up in Virginia. any where else, TO
send Wings TO this convention. They had proposed
the pledge, and had protested and presented
credentials The only credentials before them those
of the other set and those only therefore could they
act
preclude the convention from deciding upon their
denals and their admission. Their wish was, and
is, TO make such decision would be satisfactory to the
democracy Of New ork TO the democracy of the Union
The gentleman from Connecticut had said that he
deroOd that the vote upon the admission of the Syracuse
delegates decided by majority Of only one. This
was mistake The question on requiring the pledge
was Carried by majority Of but the question of
admitting the Syracuse delegates, the vote, without any
credentials from the other delegates, stood l6 to g.
Mr. FOrman, of Georgia, said that the convention were
as well prepared TO vote the question they
would be after the hearing any speeches He there
lore moved the previous question.
Mr. Yancey hoped the gag would not be put upon the
right of the New York delegations to be heard.
The question then put sustaining the previous
question, and it was decided in the negative by large
majority
Mr. Yancey thanked the Convention in the name of the
democracy of the Union that they had not applied the
"gag to the New ork barnburners and decided their
claims upon erparte statement from the committee.
He would decide upon the principles of actual justice,
whether in regard TO the claims of hunkers barnburn
The credentials of the latter had been read
He contended that the committee had exceeded their
powers in presenting the pledge TO the deegaesa pledge
which absolute test-and had refused even to
their credentials until they gave this pledge
which, had been prescribed TO him, he would have but
toned up his and walked out of the Convention. If
he understood democracy it something higher than
bowling TO the test Of any public body test applied TO
and not to measures, inconsistent with the prn
eipes Of democracy. Here fourteen fifteen
members prescribing pledge to this dele gaton which
neither of those fourteen fifteen had taken themse ves
For one, if he to have fight with the New y ork
barnburners, be wished to have it did RhOderick Dhu
BY throwing away all weapons calculated to give him
unfair advantage.
Mr. Yancey proposed in conclusion the following reso-
utiOn amendment to that offered by Mr.. Toucey:
ReS0Ued, That a voluntary association of the De-
mocracy we have no right to sit upon the conflicting
claims of the Democracy of any Sate and therefore, that
the Democracy of New York must determine for them
selves which delegation from that State is their repre-
sentatives.
Mr.. Bedinger said, that like the gentleman from Ala
bama he reoced that the previous question had been
voted down. But he differed from that eoquen; gentle
man. the facts, and the rights of the convention
If the convention had the right propose the test the
committee deputed by that convention had an equal right
TO propose the test Before acting the committee simply
asked, Have you confidence in us-will you abide
decision and act with whatever may be that deciOn
Men to be tried subject to the laws by which they
be tried. The Herkimer delegates ask in
conditonally, they having the right to oppose any
dOns whatever refuse to present their credentials unless
agree to receive them Internationally He alluded to
the remark of Mr. Toucey that the taking of the chief
magtracy Of the Empire by one of her distinguished
a sacrifice. If that a sacrifice, he would be
willing to make thousand such. Nor any candidate
of the democracy borne ao upon the shoulders Of
any however honest, however able, however dstn
gulshed.
Mr. Bright and moved to lay both propositions
the table, with view to the introduction Of resolution
that the two sets of delegates should be heard before the
convention.
He however, withdrew his motion for the present, to
allow Mr. Barley, of Ohio, to offer amendment to the
amendment by striking ali after the word that in
the amendment, and insert substitute providing for the
admission Of both SETS and allowing New York to cast
% votes and each other delegation double their number
of electoral votes.
Mr. BARLEY proceeding to state that his proposition
offered in his individual capacity, and not coming
from the delegation.
Mr. Bright renewed his motion TO lay all the PROPOSE
tons the table, but again Withdrew il to allow few
words Of explanation from MIR. Dcknson by whom, at
the conclusion of his remarks the motion renewed
Mr.. Hibbard Of New Hampshire, inquired to tie
effect Of laying the several propositions The report of the
committee, &c, the table.
The President said that any gentleman could then sub
NIT any other distinct proposition