The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-30
The Approaching Democratic State
Convention

The Winona Democrat, of the 18th inst,
objects to the call of the Democratic State
Central Committee, for variety of reasons,
none of which have any foundation in fact
but, there are some of them worthy of no
tice, as Indicative of the animus OF the cratic
editor of that sheet.
In regard to the call, it is simply neces.
sary to state that it met the approval of a
majority of the committee, exclusive of the
chairman and that it will stand as it now
appears in this paper, the Winona editor to
the contrary, unless revoked OR amended by
competent authority.
One of the reasons assigned by the Demo-
crQt, in Directing to the call is that
The Apportionment of Delegates in the
call is not in accordance with the resolution
passed at the State Convention on the 18th of
August last, prescribing the basis of represen.
tation in future Democratic State Conventions.
The call is based upon the most reliable
data obtainable, of the population of the
State, viz: the basis adopted by the Con-
stitutional Convention, in 1857, in districting
the State for members of the Senate and
House. Hon. w. w. PHELPS offered the
resolution in the last Democratic State
Convention, providing that the representa-
tion in future Conventions should be by
population, and he expresses himself entirely
satisfied that the call now published is in
accordance with his resolution. We have
always insisted that the proper basis of rep
resentation was neither the population or
the whole vote of county, but the Demo-
cratic cote alone. We urged the adoption
of this basis upon the last State Convention,
but that body established in lieu thereof,
Mr.. PHELPS proposition. One of the Dem
ocratic papers, published in the Minnesota
valley, which was loudest last fall, in denoun-
cling representation according to the Demo-
cratic vote, now attacks the Chairman of
the State Committee, because the call issued
for the ensuing State Conve ntion. adopts
the basis pointed out by MIR. PHELPS reso-
luton, instead of basing the call upon the
vote received by the Democratic candidates
This is a pretty fair sample of the consist
ency of our dear friends, the editors of those
rural papers, who have recently grown as
rabid as if the dog-days were upon US.
The next objection of the Democrat is
worthy of insertion, comments and all
Our third objection to the call is, that it is
made for the election of EIGHT delegates,
when it we'll known that the State is only en-
titled to FOUR, and that but four will be al
lowed to vote in the National Convention. In
this is hidden very ingenious trick of the
Chairman of the State Central Committee and
certain st. Paul politicians anxious to be sent
as delegates to Charleston. 1t does not belong
to the State Central Committee to determine
whether eight men shall be sent to Charleston
all as bona fide Delegates, as the call for the
Convention plainly sets forth. 1t is for the
Convention, when assembled, to elect, first,
FOUR delegates. and then afterwards to deter.
mine whether those Delegates shall have the
power to supply all vacancies, or whether they
(the COncentiOn) will elect four AHe,na'es,
from whose lumber shall be selected men to
fill vacancies in the regular delegation should
any vacancy occur. The State Central Com
mittee have never been consulted in regard to
Earle S. Goodrich, has assumed powers, in des-
ignating the number of delegates, which the
committee never conferred upon him, and
which he has no right whatever to exercise.
We published few days since, the call
of the National Democratic Committee, for
the meeting of the Charleston Convention.
In that call appears the following resolution,
adopted by the Cincinnati Convention in
1856, for the government of the National
Committee, in calling the Charleston Con-
vention
Resolred, That in constituting future Nation
al Conventions of the Democratic party, in
order to secure the rights of the States to their
relative representations in such conventions
each State shall be entitled to twice the number
of delegates that it has votes in the Electoral
College, and no more and that the Democratic
National Committee, in making arrangements
for the next National Convention, provide such
number of seats for each State. and secure the
same to the delegates elect.
This resolution says that "each State
shall be entitled to twice the number of del
egates that it has votes in the electoral COL
lege." Now, as Minnesota has four electo-
raj votes, and as, by the simplest rules Of
arithmetic, ta0ice that number are eight, we
apprehend that the Central Committee is
right, and Mr.. CorroM avrong as to the
number of delegates to be chosen by the
Democracy of Minnesota to the Charleston
Convention. In New York, at the late
Democratic State Convention, lao delegates
to Charleston were elected, being two bona
tide delegates from each Congressional dis
trict in the State, and two aternates.
But the true secret of the opposition to
the call is contained in the fourth objection
urged by the Democrat:
The effect of the call will be to disfranchise
several counties in the State and the result Of
this will be to sow the seeds of discOrd in the
party at time when harmony of action is es-
sental to its vitality.
We most cheerfully admit that the call
does disfranchise several counties in the
State" from which delegates have hitherto