The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1860-08-01

that III ever State Convention how its vote
may be cast, the Convention will recognize the
right Of each delegate to cast his individual
vote.
"a warm debate arose ON the rtile, Id which
Mf. Richardson, Mr.. McCook, Mr.. Cessna, of
Pa, Mr.. Barry, of Mississippi, Josiah Ran.
dali and others took part, several Southern
members earnestly opposing it," The charge
of want of discussion is triumphantly refuted,
and the charge of undue haste is further re-
butted by the fact that the rule was not voted
on at its first discussion, but lay over until the
next session
Nor is the essential justice of the rule less
defensible than the mode of its adoption
Several States regularly instructed the dele
gates to vote as unit, and when this was true
the Convention assumed no right to disturb
the arrangement but where no rule was pre-
scribed, it appears obviously fairest to the
Delegates, fairest to the constituencies, and
best calculated to elicit the honest preferences
of the people to permit each delegate to cast
his vote for himself
For these reasons it cannot be matter of
surprise that the motion to lay this rule on the
table was lost by vote Of ttco to one, and the
rule ''adopted by acclamatiun."
The case of Pennsylvania chosen by the
authors of the Address to show the unfairness
of the rule, is particularly unfortunate, as the
ruling of the Convention was in accordance
with the uniform practice in Pennsylvania,
whose delegates have never in any instance
cast a united vote, save when they were united
in sentiment. There was, in short, no viola
ton of principle in the rule, and it is as fair
to assume that those wo opposed it, were actu-
ated by the hope of some undue advantage
which its rejection would secure to them, as
charge the advocates of it with similer mo-
tive. The address proceeds:
sit was by force of the contIivance we have
explained that minority rejected the plat
form supported by the majority. Its rejection
causea several Southern States to withdraw
from the Convention at Charleston. Our con-
duct in that crisis has already been vindicated
before you, and has received your approval"
What was the conduct thus vindicated and
approved by the people of Virginia? 1t was
this The unGnimoas and deliberate resolue of
the HirganiG Deleyt ttion Nor TO sEcEDE, and
the resolve equally deliberate as we shall show
directly, to accept the minority platform so
called-with what propriety may be seen fri m
the fact that its first resolution passed the
Convention by vote Of 1874 ayes, to 65
nays, and the remaining resolutions, seby accla
nation"
To have seeded at Charleston, in view Of
the fact that their constituencies had clothed
them with no discretion to that effect, would
ty. How much more unjustifable was their
secession at Baltimore after they had gathered
the sentiment of their constituencies approx
ing their refusal to secede at Charleston
The address here concludes its accoutt Of
the Charleston Convention, and if any evi-
dence in addition to the facts Just detailed
were wanting to establish the fact that up to
this time there was no plausible exctise for
secession, it is furnished in the act of the Vir-
ginia delegates who not only declined to secede,
but took their full share in the acts of the
Convention for three days subsequent to the
adoption of the obnoxious platform, emdeavor-
iag ffty-seven ballots to put their .fauorite on
that platform as a candidate for the Presider-
cy! The conclusion is irresistible either that
they and Mr.. Hunter endorsed the Platform,
or that they were engaged in the attempt to
launch the National Democracy into cam
paign f'with platform looking one way and a
candidate the other"
The Address now proceeds to give an ac-
count of the adjourned Convention at Balti-
more, and keeping in mind the fact that the
Virginia delegates by the most solemn, unani-
nous, and unequiyocal acts declaring that up
to this period there was no just cause for Sc
cession, let examine their statements of
fact as to the Baltimore meeting
The first charge made by the Address against
exclude the delegates from Mississippi, Tex
as and Georgia, upon which the Address en-
larges. The seceders certainly do not mean to
assert that the Convention showed any dispo-
sition to exclude the delegates from Mississip-
pia and Texas. No charge could be more
gratuitous The committee reported in favor
of their admission, and the Convention con-
irmed the report-in each case admitting the
delegate from those States by a vote of $50
%: Five hundred delegates voted aye, "and
only five nay" And in the case of Georgia,
the Convention, as the Address admits, also
decided the question in accordance with JUS
tice and with the wishes of the South, admit
ting the seceders and excluding their contes-
tants by a vote of 145 to 163.
Indeed, the Address itself having devoted
more space to the cases of Mississippi, Texas
and Georgia, than it bestows upon the entire
proceedings at Charleston, obviously with the
attempt to create the impression that the Con-
vention was bent upon injustice, concludes by
affirming that the Convention "waiyed all
the objections which were suggested, and
properly reduced the inquiry in such cases to
the simple question, who were the regular rep
resentatives of the Democracy of the South %
There remained the cases Of Alabama and
Louisiana, in which there were full sets of
delegates mpeting-Arkansas, where there
was partial competition, and in the cases of
Missouri and Massachusetts, one contested seat
in each of the delegations.
The Address does not pretend to enter into
any argument to show that the Convention
made an erroneous decision as to these cases,
but contents itself with mere sweeping af-
frmance of that charge. We shall therefore
dismiss it with few reflections which must
suggest themselves to any fair-minded man.
1st. No principle can be clearer than the
right of representatives assembled to judge of
the qualifications of their members Dictates
of obvious propriety and necessity commenced
the general adoption of this rule in all deliber-
atite bodies. The Constitution of the Union
and the orgahtic law of every State in the
Confederacy, contain provisions similar to that
in otr own Constitution Cart. ". Section 81
"Each House shall judge of the election, quail
fcation, and return of its members"
To recognize the right and object to its ex-
ercise, except in accordance with our wishes or
infprests r,0siti0n fno r,uori1o 20 m d;s