The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-06-10

neither Of said contesng delegations represent sngly the
entire democracy Of New York; now, therefore,
Resoieed That the chairman be directed inform the
executive committee of each contestug delegation that the
committee will recommend the rejection Of both deega-
tions by the National Convention, unless waving minor
differences for the sake Of hatmoy ard for the success OF
the democratic party each of said delegations shall select
and report to the committee thrtyve delegates to act
with the like number from the other delegation repre-
sentaves of the democracy OF New York in the National
Convention. n
The proposed substitute rejected by the vote Of nine
teen States to wit New Hampshire, Vermont Massachu-
ses, Virginia North Carolina South Carolina, Alabama
Mississippi Ohio Kentucky Tennessee Arkansas Missouri
Georgia, Illinois, Michigan Florida, Iowa. and Rhode
Island in the negative against eleven votes IN its favor by
The representatives from Maine ConRectcut New Jersey
Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland, Indiana, Louisiana,
Texas Wisconsin, and California.
The resolutions submitted by the representative OF Ken
lucky then adopted by the votes of the nineteen
States in the affirmative against the votes of the eleven
States in the negative In taking the vote these reso
uons the preamble excluded but after the adoption
OF the resolution the preamble declaring the sos to be
the regular organization adopted by the of six
tern States in the affirmative against thirteen in the mega
tvehe States of Alabama and Arkatsas voting in the
negative with the eleven States which had previously voted
against the resolutions.
subcommittee then appointed to ascertain the
votes to which each section would be entitled and the COM
mittee adjourned to meet ut eight o'clock.
When the committee again assembled certain tabular
statements and printed papers and documents showing the
votes poed in the State of New York. submitted on
the part of the sofs by Mr. Seymour and written state
men stating the objections to ascertanng from these votes
the relative strength of the two sections submitted on
the part of the hards by Mr. Beardsey
motion was then made by the representative from Hi
nos TO reconsider the preamble and resolutions adopted by
majority of the committee in the mornng which motion
carried. The representative then submitted
preamble and resolutions which appear in the report OF
the majority Of the committee and which adopted by
the of the States (Which had adopted in the
morning the resolutions offered by the representative from
Kentucky in the affirmative against eight States in the
negative to wit: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Indiana, Louisiana, and Wisconsin, the repre-
sentayes OF New Jersey and Texas declined voting and
the representative from California was absent
The undersigned unable to perceive any substantial
difference between the preamble and resolutions adopted
by the committee in the morning, and rescnded in the
evening, and those which adopted substitute
and appear in the report of the committee.
In the preamble the resolutions first adopted the al
legged fact of the sofs being The regular organization of the
New York democracy is somewhat decsivey stated
but in neither of the preambles admitted that the hards
regular organization of democrats The basis of set
ement is substantially the in both sets of resolutions
the difference being that the first resolution adopted as
offered by the representative from Kentucky contemplated
a calculation founded the polls of the State of New
York in 1859, 1854 and 1856 and the resolution finally
adopted whilst 1t preserves the rregularty in the number
of delegates allowed the sections fixes the number
at foryour delegates fer the so and twenysx for the
hards founded in estimate of the average vote OF the
two sections in the years mentioned.
The committee then adjourned to halfpas eight o'clock
NJ ON the first instant having appointed sub-commit-
tee to carry into effect the resolutions 1t had adopted
The undersigned conceive it due to their on action to
state the general grounds which it based. II ap
peared by the evidence submitted TO the commitee and
indeed, Is matter Of political history that, after the
treacberous abandonment of the democratic party in siS
by those who entertained free-soi opinions union
effected in ls49 between the hunkers and barnburners
(which had been the names previously borne by the
sections into which the democratic party Of New York was
divided and the party continued united in its oganza-
tons until 1885, but the terms hards and sos had come
into use before the dsrupture in 1854 designating
der the former that portion of the old bunker party who
were disincned to the union effected in la4g but yielded
TO 1t In the hope Of future accordance in opinion on ali
uonal questions; and the latter TO that portion OF the
hnnkers more decidedly favored the reunion, to-
gether with the bsrnburuers who were recalled into
the dernoctatc patty of few York by that unon
The exact causes which led 10 The SEPARATE orgaiiza
tons in 1853 rest much in opinion and in that of the
undersigned the disruption between hards and sos is
more attributable to dssonance Of sentiment in relation 10
the Wilmo provso and other kindred questions connect
ed with The authority Of Congress in reference 70 the In"
suon Of slavery and the propety of its exercise than
to any other There vera doubtless other state
local questions which contributed to widen the breach
but The evidence before the committee to the regularity
OF action OF the two sections in reference to the
Of organization which took place in Septem err 1853
not In tbs epiniSn ~ be pndhrgned sufficient to enable
them TO apply TO either section the designation oil the reg
uar democracy contrasted with the seeding portion Of
the party The strongest evidence that the hards could
not be justly considered seeding faction is derived from
the fact that their actual aggregate vote at the election
held In 1853 amounted to $780, and that Of the sos 10
009o7 vote nearly equal could not In the opinion
OF the undersigned have been received from the democrats
Of New York by seeding faction. Considering all
the evidence before The Committee vie Arrived at The con-
cuson that two distinct sections Of the democratic party
Of New York, Of nearly equal numbers, organized
in 1853 and that TO neither could the term OF regular
ganizaton be- with propriey, exclusively applied This
would have been oht opinion had we been called upon 20
decide the question Of regularity Immediately after the
election Of 1853 but in The following year the Nebraska
bill passed, and the principle Of non-ntererence by
Congress with slavery In State and Territory became test
question with the democrats Of the Union In the cleo
ons Of 1854 the excitement arising out Of the passage Of
that BILL and the principle involved in IT. defeated the
democrats in many States In which they had previously
large majores and placed the party in minority in the
House of Represen tatves Of the thryourIh Congress
In reference this question Of noninterference with
slavery, which became cardinal principle with the
oual democrats and which has been expressly recognised
essential principle Of party faith by the present Ma
onal Convention II the action Of the two
tions Of the New York democracy in August 1855 We
should have TO pronounce without reference 10 any ques
ton Of regularity in the disruption in lB53 that the hards
constituted the national democracy and the sofs tho free
soil democracy Of New York.
The existence Of the democratic PARTY Of the Union, II
not that OF the Union itself became dependent upon the
establishment Of the principle Of nonnterence and in
this state Of things the hards held their State convention
at Syracuse the 23d day Of August Isi5 and the fol-
lowing resolutions constitute their platform in relation to
national questions
Resolved That the national democratic party Of New
York hereby their adherence and devotion the
principles Of the national democracy and Of the constu-
ton that they adhere 10 and sustain In theory and prnc-
ce the resolutions Of the democratic party Of the Union
they rendopt them with hearty good will believing that
time and experience have demonstrated their purity and
ouudnes and the necessity for strict adherence thereto
Resoucd That the lessons Of the fathers Of democracy
teach rugaty and economy 10 the administration Of pub
lie affairs and that adhere to them enduring articles
Of democratic faith
Resoued The we insert rs an article of our creed upon
the well-esabshed doctrine Of State rights, OF strict