Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-06-23

these States as in the case of Mississippi called con
vention Of the party. The conventions met The dele.
gates 10 the case of Mississippi, submitted their
ton to The conventions and these conventions approved
their course continued their powers and accredited them
to Baltimore. Their rights stand on precisely the same
basis and are sustained by the same authority In Mis-
sssppi The contestants were appointed by nobody
thorzed according TO the usages OF the party in
these States aud not entitled TO any consideration
whatever.
In the case of Alabama, the convention assembled on
the call OF the Democratic executive committee address
ed to the Democracy OF the Sate) was very largely at
tended nearly every county in the State having been
represented A small number OF persons however, is
sued notice. which published in only three news
papers in the Saten two papers the notice with
signers aud in the third paper Mobile Regster) it
signed by John Forsyth and thlrty-fve others The
notice in one paper called upon all Democrats and all
other persons-in the second paper upon Democrats aud
all eonservdtires and in the third paper mobile Regis
teri upon the people Aabdmato hold county meetings
and send delegates to State CONVICTION, to be held IN
Montgomery Selma the 4th day OF June, to appoint
delegates to Bal more Twenty counties only out
of fity-two were Represented.
IL the coming together of persons from all parties
outside OF the regular organization to strike down the
Democracy of the State Ii call without any Off
cia authority whatsoever We thus find the Democracy
OF the State assembling in Convention according the
usages of the party and find ut the same time per-
sons assembling the call OF unauthorized individuals
In the former the whole State represented Ia
the Committee have endorsed the action of the Democ
racy of Alabama aud have repudated contrary TO all
precedent usage, right and justice the action OF the for
mer; not only This they have repudiaed the principles
OF their action i'll the case OF the Mississippi dele
CATION.
But the action OF the majority of the Committee in
the case Of Georgia has gone step further in its DIS
regard of the acknowledged principles of the party
The Convention which the Committee put equality
with the regularly authorized Convention consisted in
tho in th.
lar Democratic Convention of the State. The regular
called Convention consisted of nearly four hundred dele
gates representing nearly all the counties OF the State.
The resolution of the Convention having been adopted
by vote of 299 to Al these latter withdrew from the
Convention and organized Thus the majority OF
your Committee have exalted the pretensons OF less than
onccghh Of the delegates Of the State Convention TO
equality with the rights Of seyeneighhs OF the Demo-
cracy of the State
In the case of Louisiana, the old convention, which
originally appointed the delegates to Charleston,
assembled the call OF the Executive Committee OF the
State and by decisive RjOriIy accredited the Charles
ton delegates to Baltimore The reasons for this action
have their parallels in the of Texas and Delaware,
which have received the sanction OF the committee In
Texas the delegates back accredited by the Demo-
cratic Executive Committee smply-t being manifest
impossbity from want of time to assemble the party in
State Convention aud in Delaware under the usages
aud rules OF the party the old ention was reassem
bed In Louisiana there time to assemble the old
convention but not order election of delegates in
the several parishes to meet convention. The Ex
ecuye Committee did everything 1t could TO get the
preston of the views Of the State. IL reassembed the
old convention, nearly every parish in the State being
represented and accredited the Charleston delegates TO
Baltimore.
But the convention whose delegates to Baltimore have
been endorsed by the majority of your committee
called at the instance Of local organizations aud Of
DR.. Cottman former member of the National Execu
tive Committee of the party The calls we're somewhat
aOu m ipa ut man narish in
the State Only twenty parishes out OF thirtynine
pretended to be represented and in several of these there
is reason to doubt the fact that the delegates did
leave behind them single constituent agreeing with them
in sentiments In not single parish this call re-
sponded to by majority of the Democratic The
convention only represented very small portion of the
party-it totally irregular besides.
The majority OF the Committee object TO the action OF
the old Convention its re-assembDg at the call Of the
Executive Committee the ground that it delunct
and could be brought to life. Yet it endorses the
action of the other Convention the call in part of the
equally defunct member of the National Committee DIR.
Cottman The following the usage Of Delaware, by the
Executive Committee of Louisiana, though manfestly
necessity for the stated has no weight as pre-
cedent with this majority. Conceding their grounds OF
its being Irregular seats delegates should be given
the body called by the regular authority and the
body assembled by responsible authority whatever
and especially when the former represented the great
body o. the party and the latter did All these
siderations however have been dsregarded by the
ior of the Committee, who have persisted By OF
Is to award the delegates the representa-
tives of the dsorganizug minority Convention.
IN the Of Arkansas the majority OF the Committee
propose divide the to all applicants In this
State the Democratic party about assembling in
their District Conventions consisting OF delegates from
the several counties OF the State for the nomination OF
members Of Congress, when their delegates returned
from Charleston As in Texas, there was not time for
the assembling of State Convention In these District
Conventions delegates selected represent the
party BIltimore. call however issued in a
Memphis paper, without any signature whatever calling
upon the people OF the Northern District to assemble in
mass meeting at Madison, to elect delegates to Balt
more.
Some four or Ave hundred men from ten 10 twelve
counties thus assembled and appointed three delsga es
to Baltimore Tn majority of The Committee propose
allow these men TO vote in the Convention. There
are counties and twentyiv thou and vo
tiers in the district. Col Hndmin, delegate, elected
by the District Convention to Baltimore, was elected to
Congress in 1855, by 5000 majority and was unan-
mousy re-nomiuated by the Convention which selected
him delegate to Baltimore. These facts show the sig
nicance Of the action OF the Disrc Convention in elect
ing delegates to Baltimore representing truly the
tment of the Democratic party of the dstrct and they
exhibit the utter insgnicnce of the anonymously call
ed Convention, for 1t will be borne in mind that il
held a central point, the terminus of the
railroad from Memphis aud where several stage and
wagon routes meet They were elected a. delegates
generally from the ate 10 the National Convention
with the hope that they might get in without any def
Lite claim.
In Massachusetts, and Missouri the contests are between
principals holding their seats aud substitutes who
held their places at Charleston. In each the prnc
pal detained at home by sickness in his family. In
each the principal gave notice TO his substitute that
he should take his at Baltimore The ,jcry Of the
committee hold that the principals elected IS such by The
proper conventions, eutitGd 20 hOr and
have reported accordingly. We hold that substitute is
appointed simply 10 act IN the absence of the principal
aud that his authority whenever the principal make
his appearance and takes his seat We emphatcay de-
clare that such has been the inyariable usage in all
venons of the party, whether National or State and
that it based and the representative prin
cipe.
all of which is respectfully submitted
Isaac |. STEVENS, Oregon,
A. i. SPEER, New Jersey,
ii. NJ. NORTH, Pennsylvania,
JNo. ii. BENTLEY, Delaware,
L. W. HUBBARD, Virginia,
X. K. BRDGERs, North Carolina,
WIN II. CARROLL, Tennessee,
Gro II. Morrow, Kentucky,
d. 5. GREGORY, California
10 the points OF difference between the majority and
minority reports of the Committee on Credentials |
with the conclusions OF the minority report in
the cases of Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and Massa
chusetts
AARON V. HUGHEs, New Hampshire.
Mr. Steyens-It will be observed that the Committee
nearly unanimous and the reports agree in the
case of Texas, Missouri and Delaware. am requested
that the delegate from Tennessee dissents from
portion of the conclusion of the Committee but votes
under instruction of his codeegates also that the gem
teman from New Hampshire agrees with the report of
the minority, in the case OF Georgia. Alabama Massa
chusetts and Missouri.
ANOTHER MINORITY REPORT.
NJ Gittinos of uarvand--Mr President ha;,o hIa