Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1860-04-28

tion Of The action OF the Comrnittee. They Ia
spent some three hour. Ia session at whic
this subject was faliv, fairly and freely dis
cussed. The resolution nov proposed to b
added bad been voted down, Tie Chairuai
Of The committee had called q meeting thi
morning 10 order, as e was understood, to re
ceiVs The a. the Fce-rresldents an
secretaries not reported at the regular meet
ing. At this adjourned meeting, when man.
members o. The committee Ucre absent, lie al
Iteration had been made. he called upon n
convention 10 sustain the naioriiyof the CON
mittee, and % discorrttnanee ans ~uslrpauoI
Of power On tbs part OF 2 portion Of a commit
tee. They bad to-day presented to the con
v~ention, as Is psrma ient presiding omcef,
nan Of ability man OF inteilect-a man Q
p0wer-Tcheersl-and the rights Of every Del
ezats were safe in bis bands The merits O
the proposed amendment were fully discusses
before the comuitree, and no reason was seen
upon a fan argument, why The rules that bal
worked wen In 1892 and 1886 shouid not worl
well now.
Mr.. Barry, OF Mississippi, suggested tia.
the committee on permanent organization
had no power or right 10 report rules. H'
should raise the point Of order at the propei
tine
Mr.. Lubbock continued to argue in favor Of
striking the proposed amendment from the re.
port.
Mr.. Salisbury, Of Delaware, desired ID,
reading Of the proposed rule, as manv Of ths
delegates did not fully understand tie quss-
ton.
Mr.. Cessns explained that, ss ehairman Of
the committee on organization, he bad laborst
hard % get the whole Of the committee toeeih.
er, again 10 consider this question Of rules T
be bad failed, it had only been because Of The
limited time. As TO the merits o. The propos-
ed amendment, be held that The Ga rule Of
1882 AMI 1856 would be construed 70 deprive
those delegates who happened 70 be in q MI
norty from freely and fully expressing their
views In the convention aud in reality disfran-
chisine them. TIE rule which it was propos-
ed 70 fdd TO The rules II The former national
conventions Of The party was 70 The effect that
In any STATE, which is not directed by its state
convention how 70 cast its vote, the eonven-
ton viii recognize the right n each delegate
10 cast his indiriaual vote. Although q was
rot 10 order to slluds 70 what had taken place
H. a COMMITTEES. vet as ether ge1demen had
done 50, be might be permitted 10 say that a
similar proposition bad only been voted down
bv a snail majority. Upon TIE rc-asseublHE
of he committee, a large msjority bad agreed
10 the rule now reported. As be had sta Cd
already, be had endeavorsd 70 procure the at
tendance Of an the committee a the adjourned
marning ression. Onlv two had been absenL
JILL VIII NNE"E EANFMANNAMH NN A.A NHEA
imously instructed to make the report as ithad
been made. Thev bad heart that the rule
formerly adopted bad worked well IN former
years, and they were therefore urged to adhere
10 Ire old rule.
But, as he had said, should the old rule pre-
vail now, andthe maiOrity o. the Pennsylvsnis
delegation decide among themselves 70 cast
he vote Of The State as a unit, be aud the con-
sfituencY represented bThim would be virtually
lisfranchisad. In the Pennsylvania State con-
v~enti0n, Of which be was a member, no propo-
siton to cast the vote OF the STATE az a unit
was entertained. The COMMITTEES on resolu-
tons in that convention had, on the contrary,
rejected such a proposition. The amended rule
was designed simply 70 explain beyond a mis-
construction, what was the honest meaning %
the rule thar heretofore prevailed, but which
was nov in danger OF misinternretatiou. In
he conventions at Baltimore and Cincinnati,
he right q every delegate b vote had been
recognized, and several Of the States, Ohio
amongst the number. had divided their votes
On almost every ballot. i might as well be-
claimed that Il was wrong to change the plat
form, as that It was wrong 70 alter the rules.
He, as a northern man, had cone here prepared
70 change the platform Of the party, If it was
deemed advisable 10 de so, and he had also
cone with a candidate from the extreme Soufh
As his first choice for the presidency. He
asked the convention not 70 strike out this
amendment, ard 50 leave him to be d~isfran-
chisedh a wrong Interpretation should be put
upon the old rule.
Mr. c. did not profess "a be extreme in bis
views, but be desired to Be protested in his
rights. He was not Of those toithreaten non
concurrence in the will o. the majority. but
was prepared 20 submit and to stavia the con-
vendon, even ~ disfranchised- There were
some Of his colleagues who were prepared 10
vote for one maR, who vas not his own choice.
They also werein a minority Of the whole DEL
eEstion, and it would be an act OF Injustice 70
distranchise them. he again appealed to the
convention not 10 reject the proposed amend
me3t 10 the rules. To disfrsnehise a portion
OF the Democracy Of Pennsylvania, might ne
10 give that State DO the Republicans. but a.
the rights Of an delegates were respected, the
Democracy would again achieve there q glori-
triumph. l~ApPlaase.l
Mr. Barry, OF Mississippi. raised the point
Ct order, hat the committee on permanent or
ganizatioH had no right 10 report rules, and
90 much Of their report should &c re-
jected.
Mr. Josiah Randall, Of Pennsylvania, said
be, too, was in favor Of a candidate from the
SoE.h, and would vote for NJ man who had not
the eatire confidence Of the South. II the
gentleman from his own State, (Nr. Cessna.)
said as much, be would act differently from
what was supposed 20 be bis views and wishes
at home. He desired that he proposed amend
nsLt should be stricken out. because with the
.wo-lhiTd rule thst prevailed In the eonven-
ton, such amendment would virtually dIsfran.
-hise the majority, and enable one-,hird Of a
delegation 70 Deutralize TIE action Of the re-
tWo-thiris- He reviewed the action
1f the Pennsylvania State convention, aud pro- I
-ested against any action Of the convention /
vould destroy the sReaey OF lhe vote Of
hat state in The convention.
Mr.. Bishop, OF Connecticut, claimed that I
be point Of order raised BY the gentleman 1
rom Mississippi (Mr. Barry) ought 10 be de-
.ided al once By the chair.
TIE Chair. The point Of order must be
lettled at once BY the chair. The convention
yesterday decided 70 adopt the rules % the
asst national convention, and the chair is Of
.pini0n that in reporting rules, the committee /
raveled out Of its province, and that so much
z its report is cut Of order. TAppluse.1
Mr- Bishop. I now move the previous
The Chair. The gentleman from Illinois.
NJ. Ricbsrison) was recognised by The chair
.udhss tie floor.
Mr.. Bishop. Iraiss the point that the gen
rose 10 address the chair on a question
declared out Of order, and is not, there
ore, entitled 30 the floor.
Mr. Richardson, who had remainrf stand
NJ, said hat be had heard the remarks Of the
from P~ehnsFlvania CMr. RandaiD
surprise. Il might be interesting FOR the
onven.ion 10 know how loHg that gentleman
ad b en- a member % TIE Democratic party.
A Voice. I hope the president will not
How any personal illusions. TCries Of
Orderi Order - "Go or Go ont-1
Several delegates rose az once to points OF
rider, without being recognized by the chair,
Mr.. McCOok, OF Ohio, desired to appeal
rom a decision Of the chair. L had been
ecided blythe chair that so m-eh Of the re-
oTt as related 10 the recommendation OF rules
D govern the convention, was out Of order.
chair bad based his decision upou The
tatement that the rules Of The last convention
ad been adopted yesterday By TIE present
invention 10 govern its action. This was an
rror. The resolution adopted Yesterday had
e~ierence only TO the temporary organization,
nd only adopted the old rules unfi the per
lament organization should be eff cted. Ohio.
o this ground, desired to appeal from the De.
ision Of The chair.
The President pre- fem. The chair row re-
lrmbers that he statemtnt Of he gentleman
Ohio, Mr. McCook. is correct The
hsir, 10 making bis former decision, labored
nder a Misrepresentation, and now recalls and
oversees that decision. The report Of the
ommittee on organization is ID order.
Nr. LeWrence, OF Louisiana, read from the
aport OF the previous days proceedings, and
rguec that the resolution contemplated that
committee on organization should rrDort
officers only, and that they had 20
over 20 report rules.
Mr. Whitney. call for a division OF the
uesti0n on the report OF the committee.
Mr.. Briere, Of Alabama, again raised The
oint Of srder that the COMMITTEES on orEsDiza-
on had, under the resolution. no power 10
port rules AZ an.
Mr.. Cessna r7se b a point OF order. Tie
was now entertaining Questions as
The power Of the Jommitee on orrariza-
on 20 report rules The report made BY that
1mmittes bad been received and accented. II
as too late now to entertain such questions
order AZ had been raised. The point sboud /.
ave been taken before the acceptance Of The f.,
5mm1tee's report. !
Mr.. whitney. Do 7 understand the chair
rule that the question On the ADOPTION Of
.s rsport Of the committee on organization is
The President no fen. Tie ebsIr 30 de- .
de7, the question is divisiblp y
Mr.. Richardson. ] claim the right 10 the {
which have not yet Welded. After o
said WbatIl desin 10 say, ben the gen 9
sman can press his motion for a division Of
e question. q
TIE President pro ten. The gentleman from b
linois is entitled 70 the h0or.
A Delegate. The chair has decided the q
lestion 10 Be diviEible. The question, there n
re, is on that portion relating 10 the perma- K
ut orzanization- The gentleman from Ini- D