Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-07-05

tice was without signers, and in the third
paper Mobile Register. it was signed by
John Forsyth and thirty others. The
notice in one paper called upon all Demo
Gratis and all other persons; in the second
paper upon Democrats and all conserua-
tires, and in the third paper Mobile Reg
ister) upon the people of Ala5apsa. to hold
county meetings and send delegates to a
State Convention, to be held in Montgom
cry or Selma, the 4th day of June. to ap-
point delegates to Baltimore. Twenty
eight counties only out Of fifty-two were
represented.
1t was the coming together of persons
from all parties outside of the regular or
} ganization to strike down, the Democracy
of the State. 1t was call without any
official authority whatsoever. We thus
/ find the democracy ofthe State assembling
in convention according to the usages of the
party, and we find at the same time persons
assembling at the call of unauthorized in
dividuals.k In the former case the whole
State was represented. In the latter about
half OF the State. Yet the majority of the
committee have endorsed the action of the
latter as the action Of the democracy Of
Alabama. and have repudiated, contrary
to all precedent. usage, right and justice,
the action of the former, not only this,
they have repudiated the principles of their
own action in the case of the Mississippi
delegation.
| But the action Of the majority of this
committee in the case of Georgia has gone
one step further in its disregard of the ac-
knowledged principles of the party. The
convention which the committee put on an
equality with the regularly authorized con-
vention consisted in great part of persons
who had just participated in the regular
democratic convention of the State. The
regularly called consisted ofnearly four hun
dred delegates, representing nearly all the
counties Of the State The resolutions of
the convention having boen adopted by a
vote of 299 to Al, these latter withdrew
from the convention and organized anew.
Thus the majority Of your committee have
exalted the pretensions of less than one
eighth Of the delegates of the State con-
vention to an equality with the rights Of
seven-eighths of the democracy of the
State.
In the case of Louisiana, the old Conven-
tion, which originally appointed the dele
gates to Charleston. was re assembled, on
the call Of the Executive Committee of the
State. and by decisive majority accredit-
ell the Charleston delegates to Baltimore
The reasons for this action have heir par
allel in the case of Texas and Delaware,
which have received the sanction of the
Committee. In Texas the delegates came
back accredited by the Democratic Execu-
tive Committee simply-it being a mani
fest impossibility, from want of time. to
assemble the part in State Convention;
and in Delaware, under the usages and rules
! of the party. the old Convention was re-
assembled. In Louisiana there was time
to assemble the old Convention, but not
to order an election of delegates in the sew
eral parishes to meet new Convention
The Executive Committee did everything
it could to get an expression of the views
vention, nearly every parish in tie State
being represented, and accredited the
Charleston delegates 10 Baltimore.
4 But the Convention whose delegates to
Baltimore have been endorsed by the ma
jority ofyour Committee was called at the
instance of two local organizations. and of
DIR. Cottman, a former member of the Ma
!, tional Executive Committee of the party.
The calls were somewhat conflicting. The
notice did not reach many parishes in the
State. Only twenty parishes ont of thirty
nine are pretended 10 be represented, and
in several of these there is no reason to
doubt the fact that the delegates did not
leave behind them single constituent a
greeing with them in sentiments. In not
single parish was this call responded to
by majority of Democratic voters. The
Convention only represented very small
portion Of the party; it was totally irregu-
, lar, besides.
, The majority of the committee object to
assembling at the call of the Executive
Committee on the ground that it was de
funct and could not be brought to life
Yet it endorses the action of the other Con
/ vention on the call in part of the equally
r defunct member Of the National Committee,
; DR.. Cottman. The following of the usage
r of Delaware. by the Executive Committee
5 of Louisiana, though manifestly a necessi-
g ty, for the reasons stated, has no weight
as precedent with this majority. Con
ceiling their ground of its being irregular
; seats as delegates should be given to tho
! body called by the regular authority and
not to the body assembled by no response.
: BILE authority whatever. and especially when
) the former represented the great body o
. the party and the latter did not. All these
e considerations, however have been disrc
S garded by the majority of the committee
Q who have persisted by vote of sixteen tc
: nine to award the seats as delegates to the
1 representatives of the disorganizing minor
!, ity Convention.
G In the case of Arkansas, the majority O.
n the committee propose to divide out the
: seats to all applicants. In this State the
J. Democratic party were about assembling
: in their District Conventions, consisting
e of delegates from the several counties of tho
II State. for the nomination of members o.
e Congress. When their delegates returned
: from Charleston, as in Texas, there wa.
: not time for the assembling ola State Con
:. vention. In these District Convention.
8 delegates were selected to represent the