New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-06-12
CONVENTION OF DELEGATES
80 TO THE
sule NATIONAL CONVENTION.

4, Hon. T. "'rishh, VI ""e'' ~"
81 Cen. AMOS p. GRANGER, Of Onondaga,
''n' s.;.,sd Chairman, and Messrs. BARBER, Of
ssH1 and DoDp, Of Washington, Secretaries.
Cs''S raw,ts. of Columbia, moved that the Sec
W. ...edto call the districts. Carried.
r;s' ~ lid District being called, Messrs.
and BEEKaAN respectively presented
s ,, On the With District being called,
GO ,ssrrY and GRISNELL appeared. On
WV ,y,h r,;strict being called, Messrs. BLEAKLEY
w' ns.,n,cr appeared; and on the XXXth
c,led. Messrs. COLE and Bennett. The
te,s 49,. from the LIST, XIth, XXIId, XXVllth
rsySvvIIIth were not present. The Delegate
~ -. xxIXth (Blr. FREEMAN CLARK not be-
Tvs ....s,t his substitute (Mr. 5. G. ANDREwsl
r, ,laee. temporarily. Mr.. VAIL, from the
:. n;str;ct. subsequently came in.
IL. I;st Of the contestants having been called,
a. r,.rr said he supposed the action of this
c'.r.,tion would not be final, unless the con-
-. 49,. \. admitted. He wished to hear from
a. delegates themselves.
-. ss,spIow claimed his sea. by virtue ola
.al., election, and Mr.. BEEKHAs would sub
:. a the decision Of no tribunal below the Ma
al Convention. Mr.. SHARbLow, as the regr-
"A, elected Delegate, would claim the right to
- in the selection Of Delegates at Large.
Hes. GEo. X. BABcooK (Eriel conceded in
II. sOinion that this Convention could not make
l,,lSseisiOn, without the concurrence VI the con-
,,asuts. Win such concurrence, the action here
.oaN be final. In the case Of the Hid District
s.vident there will be so such concurrence, and
,psQuently the National Convention would have
art. As, therefore, it is understood that the
1.esios Of these contested seats would not change
a. selection of Delegates at Large, he suggested,
,ouod any irritating discussion, to proceed to the
lection Of Delegates at Large, without taking up
,bs contested seat at all. He so moved.
Mr.. CowLEs (Columbia) supposed it was unne-
,,s.sry 10 discuss the fnality Of the action Of
ths Convention. The Delegates had been called
together to add to their number and, in accom-
oishipg this end, it was desirable to know who
lad a right in the opinion of this body, to take
mart IN this election. Such decision might not be
SnL. but it was proper. Indeed, in his opinion,
this Convention should act SO as to have full
vote in the selection of elegates-at-large. If the
deeson of this Convention shall be objected to,
tbe sggrieyed parties will still have the power Of
,vpea He moved, therefore, Committee to
vhon shall be referred the claims Of the several
Contestants.
MIR. BABCocK further stated his views against
present action nothing would be accomplished by
n II the determination of the Convention in
hese contested cases was to have any influence
mon the complexion Of the Delegates at Large,
he question would assume a different aspect.
But no decision that could be made here would
fleet that.
Mr.. FrsKE inquired how the Delegation would
appear at the National Convention, if they shall
proceed to elect delegates at arge, deliberately
excluding Delegates entitled to their seats
Mr. DUKE City would protest against any
present action.
Mr.. CARNLEY City, would not submit his claims
10 this body. He denied that he had any con-
ssant, and would act as he Delegate-the only
Delegate.
Hon. NJ. II. GRINSELL CITY would not have
aid anything at this point but, claiming to be
be regular Delegate, he appeared here. lie was
oveyer, willing to submit his case to this body,
nd to abide its decision. II other gentlemen
hculd decline this arbitration because they were
minority, he might much more reasonably do so
ince he was in minority of one.
Mr.. CoLR was Of opinion that this body should
ct. His seat was contested but, feeling deep
interest in the selection of Delegates at Large, he
aimed as right TO take part in that selection, ii
le had right, as he claimed, to his seat. This
question he was willing TO submit to his associate
Delegates. The gentleman from Erie had assumed
hat the decision ofcontested these seats would not
,haDge the result in the choice of Delegates at
large. What right had he to make that assumption'
lis (Mr. C.'s) own vote might turn the scale. 1t
night be that the represented sentiment of the
Wigs ofthe State was very emphatic in one dlrec-
ion but that fact did not determine the persons
Who might be elected. lie was willing TO leave
lis right to seat to the COMMUNICATING,
ven, to allow his contestant TO choose the Com
nittee.
Mr.. BENNETT (0rleans) protested against the
ight Of Mr.. CoLE to the seat he claimed. lie
vas the delegate from that district to Baltimore,
nd he should so there.
Mr.. BLEAKLEY, (Westchester) as contestant,
vas willing to abide the decision of this body,
'hsteyer it might be. But, if he were not ruled
ut, he would claim the right to vote in the seleS-
ion of Delegates at Large.
Mr.. CAMPBELL City protested against the
ending motion. 1t was designed to PREJUDICE the
isn question.
Mr.. CowIEs would deem this remark, il made
eberately, such an imputation upon his charac-
er that he should repel it as an insult. But he
rould suppose the remark was not intended to
Onvey all it meant.
Mr.. CAmPBELL disavowed any imputation upon
nv gentleman, and moved an amendment that All
Ontestants be allowed TO vote in this Convention.
Mr.. BABoocK said that the result he feared, had
Leady oecasioned bad feeling in the discussion OF
IN Improbable question. As, however, the sub
ect was up, he trusted that now this last amend
Oent might prevail. ltwould allow his friend from
he AAXIst tAIr. CoLEl and ell Others to vote,
IS they desired to DO. The proposition was made