Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-07-04
rhe conte..ed sea,. a Bal,inore.


reasons presented by Mr. Krum, chairman of the
majority. for the recommendations made to the
Convention by the majority.
Mr. Krum said he desired to place before the con-
yetion his views briefly, in relation to few points
in connection with the majority report of the
mttee on credentials. The gentleman then pro-
cceded to read from somewhat lengthy printed
communication from the committee.
The following is the review of the minority
port Of the committee credentials as read by MIR.
Krum:
1t will be observed that the majority report con-
tans only the coaclus0Hsand of the
committee. This is the usual course. Committees are
the chosen organs for investigation Of deberative
bodies. Their reports are coDded in, and unless as
sailed, stand unqucstoned. In the matter now be-
fore the convention, the report Of the committee is
assaied by minority report, (sgned by j. j. Stew
and eight others,) and statement of certain
premises and labored argument have been present
ed by the minority Of the committee to support the
conclusions Of this minority.
The statements contained in this minority report
on which the main argument Of these gentlemen is
founded, arc for the most part naked assumptions,
not established by any evidence before the commit
tee, and depend entirely for their verify upon the
mere ipSe dirt of the gentlemen who make them.
The task of exposing the misstatements contain
ed in this minority report is an easy one and it will
be done in terSe but unmiStakable language In the
brief space Of fifteen minutes the most salient points
can only be noticed Ii the facts assumed by these
gentlemen have foundation, a matter of course
their argument based upon them falls to the ground
Now to the work
First 1t is asserted that the withdrawal from this
Convention Of certain delegates, teds not a resigRa
ton that the racancies referred TO lin the resolu-
ton of this convention) had reference to the cOntn
geney Of raeances at the time Of re-dssemJling de-,
l. e. prospective vacancies! A holder abSurdity
was never uttered. Now what was the subject
matter Of which the committee had jurisdiction?
Was it not the Credentials Of all persons claiming
seats &C. made vacant by the secession of delegates
at Charleston
This convention decided for itself whether vacan-
cics had occurred. The Democracy of the States,
affected by such Withdrawal, in every instance, by
appointing delegates anew, virtually admitted that
vacancies had occurred. The claimants who APP
peared before your committee, by accepting new
appointment admitted the fact, and the gentlemen
OF the minority stultfy their statement by act
ing on these very cases.
IL there were no vacancies by secession, there
was nothing for the committee to do in respect to
such cases. Out upon such nonsense.
Secondly, In attempting to show the inconsistent
cy Of the majority report, these gentlemen state
that delegates were recommended to seats who had
not been reappontcd or reaccredited to Baltimore
after their secession at Charleston.
To this fiat denial is given. This denial is bas
ed upon the evidence tina: was before the commit
tee. In every case, to wit in Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas the
parties admitted to seats 10y the majority report had
been severally elected, appointed, re-accredited
in FORM since the adjournment at Charleston OF
this fact (f the evidence is reliabe) successful
tradictOn is challenged.
The minority gentlemen again stutify themselves,
for they show that reflections took place in three
States but they strangely forgot to state the fact
Established before the commttee,) that MeSsrs.
Bayard and Whiteley were reappointed accorded to
the rules Of the Democracy Of New Castle Co.,
Delaware and the Texas delegation were directed
by the Executive Committee Of that State to repair
to Baltimore. 1t was evidence before the com
mittec that this a customary mode in those
States of making nominations and appointing dele
gates &c. The committee considered it tantamount
TO a reappontment.
But what of Mississippi? Is it not the boast Of
some Of the Mississippi delegation, that they have
been re-appOnted since their secession without OPP
position? If there has not been a new election,
how comes it that delegates are here from Mississp
pi who were not at Charleston? The credentials of
this delegation show upon their face that they
appointed by the Convention that sat on the 3Oth
and 3lst Of May, 1860. The temerty Of the gen.
tlcmen is without parallel. No new election in
Mississippi?
The following are some reasons which influenced
the decision Of the majority of the committee in re-
p. Walker is chairman. He and his associates
claim to have been appointed by convention that
sat on the 4th of June inst Several Of these were
not seceders at Charleston. Mark this fact But
where these delegates appointed on the 4th of
June to go-to what convention? They were in
Structed by the convention that appointed them to
repair to Richmond and cooperate with the dele
gates Of that convention.
This is written upon the face Of the credentials
which were before your committee II is true,
little lower down, in the same paper, they "ac-
credited" to this convention.
These gentlemen were considered by your COM
mittce Cor this and other reasons, as delegates to
the Richmond convention and not to this. A rowing
commiSson Suppose their instructions had in
cuded conventions of the black Republicans at
Chicago, and Of the Mormons of Utah--would this
convention allow them seats after they had boxed
the compass under such n rowing commission?
Your committee said No. and every true Democrat
throughout the land will respond No!
ARKANSAS.
In the Arkansas case, the applicants for seats
show so regularity Of record The secederS from
Charleston having vacated their seats by the act of
secession the committee felt it their duty either to
recommend to the convention the exclusion Of both
sets of applicants the of irregularity, to
admit both; the two district conventions that are
alleged to have sustained the actions of the seceders
and to have accredited them to Baltimore, had by
their own admission, no power to act in the prem
ses and therefore their action does not entie the
applicants to seats in the convention. The opposing
claimants were appointed by convention called,
upon notice, in the usual way by individuals not
possessing official character, and they there
FORE technically speaking more entitled than the
others to seats; but the committee disregarding
technicaltes and not desiring to leave the Demo-
cracy of Arkansas unrepresented on this floor, de-
cided to recommend that all the claimants be admit
ted to seats in the convention the terms and con-
ditions specified in their report
LOUISIANA.
In the Louisiana case it is clearly demonstrated
likewise, that according to strict usage neither of
the delegations entitled to be received by this
convention. The seceders from Charleston did not