Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-06-27

Reserying to the closing portion of this report
of cases Of contested seats in the Massachusetts
and Missouri delegation, We come at once to the
cases Of the delegates who withdrew from the
Charleston convention. This convention, on the
eve of its adjournment at Charleston and in the
great cause of the restoration of harmony to our
distracted party respectfully recommended TO the
democratic party of the several States to make pro-
vision for supplying all the vacancies in their re-
spectiye delegations this convention when it shall
re-assemble." We call particular attention to the
wording of the resolution. Certain delegates had
withdrawn. They had placed on the convention
the reasons of their withdrawal.
They still, however were the representatives OF
the democratic party OF their several States Their
withdrawal was not resignation. Ii was not 80
considered by the convention. The vacancies re-
erred to had reference to the contingency OF vacan
cies at the time Of assembling and the resolution
proposed to provide for supplying them. The con-
vention did not presume touch the question as to
whether the Withdrawal of the delegates constituted
a resignation, nor had in any right to interfere in
the matter. A resignation must be made to the aP-
pointing power, and to be complete and final must
be accepted by the appointing power. 1t was well
known on the adjournment Of the convention at
Charleston that the Withdrawing delegates desired
the instruction Of their several constituencies be-
fore deciding on their future course
Such was the spirit and purpose of their dehber-
atoms at Charleston They consulted their respeec-
Of South Carolina their constituencies directed or
authorized them-the vacancies being filled as con-
templatcd in the resolution Of the conventIon-to
repair to Baltimore, and there, IN earnest efforts
with their brethren OF the convention, to endeavor
once more to unite their party and promote harmo-
ny and peace in the great cause Of their country
The resolution of the convention did not PREJUDICE
the question: since so strenuousy raised that their
withdrawal was a resignation, but left the whole
question to the said delegates and their respective
constituencies to the end that every State Of this
Union might he represented in Baltimore
The committee has passed resolutions declaring
by a vote of Is to that the delegation from Loui
sana headed by Pierre Soule, by vote of IA to l.
that the delegation from Alabama headed by Par
sons and by vote Of Is to 10 that half Of each del
egation claiming seats from Georgia entitled to
seats in the convention. The resolutions recon-
mended by the undersigned to the convention de-
clare the right OF the delegations elected to Charles
ton, with vacancies supplied, as contemplated in
the resolution Of the convention to which reference
has been made, and accredited to Baltimore to said
seats The committee which thus recommend the
irregular delegates from these three States have
jected the irregular delegates from Delaware, and ad
mitted the Charleston delegates.
1t has admitted irregular delegates from Arkan-
sas and rejected portion of the Charleston dele
gates as modified by the filling Of vacancies. 1t has
admitted the Charleston delegates from Mississip-
pi by vote of 90 to 2, and the charleston dele
gates from Texas by a vote of 10 to 6. The fact
that delegations not contested does not establish
the right to seats in the convention. There may
be irregular delegates without contest and there
may be contest between two sets of irregular dele
gates. The right of persons to seats delegates is
to be determined by the facts as to whether they
we're appointed by the constituency which they
claim to represent, and appointed according to the
usages of said constituency. Wanting these essen
tial prerequisites, they are not entitled to seats
| ha
their right to seats is not impaired affected by
| contestants.
The committee in deciding by vote of 90 to 8,
that the Charleston delegates from Mississippi are
entitled to seats in the Baltimore Convention. have
decided rightly, just because they were duly ac-
credited to Charleston, have never since resigned,
and have received instructions from the State of
Mississippi, through convention called of the Dem
ocratic Executive Committee of the State to return
| to Baltimore
The Charleston delegates both from Alabama and
Georgia, stand in precisely the same position They
were also duly accredited to Charleston. They
| withdrew, and never resigned. They returned to
their respective constituencies. The executive COM
mittees in these States, in the of Mississippi
| called convention of the party. The conventions
| met The delegates, in the case of Mississippi,
submitted their action to the conventions and these
conventions approved their course continued their
| powers, and accredited them to Baltimore Their
VII pISCIScly TIC same OASIS, anu are
sustained by the same authority as in Mississippi The
contestants were appointed by no body authorized
to meet according to the usages of the party in these
States, and are not entitled to any consideration
| whatever.
in the case Of Alabama, the convention assembled
on the call of the democratic executive committee
addressed to the democracy Of the State was very
largely attended nearly every county in the State
having been represented. small number of per
| sons, however, issued a notice. which was publish
ed in only three newspapers in the State-in two
papers the notice without signers, and in the
third Mobile Register) it signed by John For
| syth and thirty-five others The notice in one pa
per called upon all democrats and all other persons
i'll the second paper upon democrats and all con-
serrattres, and in the third paper Mobile Register
upon the people Of alabama, to hold county meet
ings and send delegates to State convention to bt
held in Montgomery or Selma, the 4th day of June
to appoint delegates to Baltimore. Twenty-eigh
counties only out of fifty-two were represented.
1t was the coming together of persons from al
parties outside of tie regular organization to strike
down the democracy of the State 1t was a cal
without any official authority whatsoever W,
thus find the democracy Of the State assembling II
convention according to the usages Of the party
we hnd at the same time persons assembling at tn,
call OF unauthorized individuals In the former cas-,
the whole State was represented In the latte
about half OF the State Yet the majority of tn,
committee have endorsed the action of the latter n
the action Of the democracy of Alabama and hav
repudiated contrary to all precedent, usage, RICH
and justice, the action of the former not only this
they have repudated the principles of their own &C
ton in the case of the Mississippi delegation.
But the action of the majority of this committe
in the case of Georgia has gone one step further il
its disregard of the acknowledged principles of tn
party. The convention which the committee pu
on an equality with the regularly authorized con
Venton, consisted in great part of persons who jus
N tha
the State The regular called convention CONSISTS
of nearly 400 delegates representing nearly al
the counties of the State. The resolutions of tn
convention having been adopted by vote of 299 :