Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1852-01-16
RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
MORNING. JANUARY 10, 1852.



The Democratic National Committee and their hcommen6d-
ton of tho Time and Place Of Holding the Contention
During our absence in Washington article appeared in
the Examiner a.salng the action of the National Demo-
cratic Committee and charging with assumption of power
We did not like tie of ths article, but in Wow OF Its
h.,ny directed against the whole Committee and not regar
ding it as intended be personally offensive towards our
selves an humble member of that committee we pass II
over and proceed The duty of setting ourselves right In
the eyes Of the Democracy Of Virginia. whose sentiments
we scek reflect whose integrity and success We ha'o al
ways endeavored 10 aid in securing We went Washing
ton In strict obedience what regarded as our duty 10
the Democratic cause We had no ulerior purpo.
sps TO accompsh-the elevation Of no man or set
OF men 10 promote Our candidates the Constitution of
the United States and the principles of The Democratic
party which than deem essential 10 The main
,epance of the Constitution, the safety of the Union
and the Rights Of the States We delighted TO hnd
the Democrats North and South ready TO forget past cs-
sensons and rally upon the old Democratic platform
We indulge the pleasing reflection that tho catholic hcon
of the Committee will materially tend the uncu and
strength of the party the achievement of glorious
victory in November. But TO the argument.
We perceive any just ground Of objection 10 The
proceedings Of hs committee in relation to the time and
place of holding Convention and only objections that
hsnsion One Of these misappehensons is that the Com
m,tos constituted themselves with power call the Conven
on time, and in whaevs. place, and In what
eve. numbers they might please.
Now the Committee have assumed any such powers
nor did they constitute themselves. The Con"cnt!on oi
54s like all other political bodies had an unioubed right
10 appoint General Committee They did 80 in 'his case
with entire unanm;,y The subject o such organization
was referred to tho Committee Resolutions This Com
mee appointed consisting OF one delegate from each
State selected by The delegation OF each Stae the late Iov
Mcdowell being the member Of the Committee for Virginia
This Committee 20 constituted unanimously reported the
following: That committee Of feen 10 be named by the
President OF this Convention be appointed Ia promote the
Democratic cause and be designated us the Democratic
Central Committee of the United States" This was
amended by tho Convention 80 as 10 read ihat commit
Ice OF from each State to be named by the respective
delegations appointed promote the Democratic cause
with power TO fill vacancies and 10 be designated the Demo-
cratic National Committee - which passed unanimous
and thcrsupon each delegation designated It's member OF
The Committee.
Ii is clear therefore, that the Committee was rightly con-
su cd and the only question that bo aised Is as !"
whether ,hey exercised any undue authority In recon-
ncndng time AM place for holding the Convention Even
uppose they had definite authority except under the gener
power of promoting tho Democratic cause was there my
appropriate eource representing all the States ~hc
could recommend time and place Such recommendation
must from some SOURCE The State Conventions
could communicate with each other, or would not Meet
10 tme and might not TO time and place. To have
waited for this movement would have retarded the organ
zaon of the Convention The members OF Congress
mch, doubtless have moved in the matter but they had GER
ainy better authority than the committee and 10 fact
their wishes could be learned they preferred mat inc
Recommendation should come from the NaIlona COMMITTEE
What then the Of proceeding Upon uli IN
ercbange of communics on with all members of the
committee they concurred in the pope,y Of meeting e,
Washington which held and 10 which every State was
represented. The members Of Congress were consulted ano
in majority Of the committee consisted oi members OF
Congress- In of the senior editor OF The En-
ouirer (ho member of the committees originally appointed
by the Conventlop the Virginia delegation IN Congress
substituted Hon. John S. Barbour who acted with the
Committee ourse appearing on the thd DAY Oh Us meet
nas This may well be regarded approval oil the whole
proceedings on the part of those gentlemen. Indeed We
did not In Washington, hear of single whisper OF COM
oaut from the Virginia ohs Democrats aganss the &C.
,on of the Committee.
And them being thus together and combining repesen'
a,ion from all States In the Unon the Committee took
no action except 10 recommend Baltimore as the place dno
the frs, of June as the time for holding The National Demo.
CRITIC Conventions and this slmple recommendation they
submitted for tho ratification Of the Democratic
party throughout the Union"
Surely my Democrat, who desires 10 have National
Convention held ALL and to ensure the choice OF pec-
aes seasonnby from oil the States cannot hnd JUST cause
If objection this simple aud unassuming recommenaa
on emana,ing from the very Intelligent and Respectable
body that made IT, and quito sure that II nae oeen
concurred in By Democratic members OF Congress- gene
.y as the best mode OF making the call that could nave
been adopted.
On III. other point, the reectlon as the number of
Co., ,ha NnItnp
assumed nor exercised any authority. They simply pub
shed the resolution adopted b. the Conven,ion OF lSaS
This the published accommodation OF the Committee clear
y shows and has also been explained by the CHAIR
man. Mr.. Haett in note published in the Washington
| Union, and republished by US.
The subiec, of tho number Of Delegates from zach State
was reported on by tho Committee on Resolutions In the
National Convention Of 1913. The resolution reported
unanimously by Committee from oil The Stnie5 "us hs
follows
Rosuved That II be -eeommsndea that hereafter each
State be entitled TO many Delegates in future Democratic
National Conventions II has in the Electoral CoNege
| .nd more"
This was carried, call Of the States, oy vote OF
aos TO a. # thus became by very decisive vote the
recommendation OF that Convention and such, and such
,ny II was published by the National Committee without
o,nion or comment Hence the committee made no such
ccres OF themselves but merely promulgated tho vote OF the
Convention which had appointed them as lis organs ana OF
The efficacy and propriey OF this Recommendation the Pso
10 ,bcmsely.s must Judge The Committee had no wishes
In the matter and no purpose 10 accomplish
We repes that the Committee assumed no power, issueo
no decree put forth suggestion on this SUBJECT
All tina, they dd-and they could have done nothing else
WAS simply 10 present the recommendation adopted oy he
Convention of lee in regard the number OF delegates
70 Baltimore corresponding with the number Of electors IN
each State That recommendation was adopted oy very
large vote Of the Convention Tho Virginia delegation 10
rho Baltimore Convention in 1885, if mistake not voted
apa!ns, the resolution and vote was also IN he
nera,.ve AT the time know that somo OF Inc
strongest State and Southern Rights delegates from
Virginia in tina, Convention voted in favor OF It.
Wa acouiesced In tho action Of large majority OF tho Dele
gates and Sta.es-beDg satisfied that object was design
ed saws that of securing convcnicn full and fair delbe'u'
,on of the body and deliberate expression OF the popular
~i We ecoect full well that, in consequence OF Inc large
delegation Of Virginia. 1t compelled to retire from Inc
,n ro- sncc;,l deliberations and that, during their ab
sence matters we're discussed 10 Convention 10 which