Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-06-27

ssssf zsaazsS sSsssS fzs7-s
calls were somewhat conflicting. The not;..
not reach many parishes in the State. Onlv ~
,ishes out of 80 are pretended to be represen,sS
ia several Of Aese there are is no reason ~ sa
the fact that the delegates did not leave behndua
single constituent agreeing with them in Ae
ments. In not single parish this call ress sa
ed to by a majority Of democratic voters % ~
vention only represented very small por,;.'
the party-it was totally irregular besides. "As
The majority Of the committee object to Il.
ton of the old convention on its re-assemhE"e %
the call of the executive committee on the nss
that it was defunct and could not be brought 's
Yet it endorses the action of the other convs'l
on the call in part of the equally dcfunct memh
the national committee, Dr. Cottman. The sn
ing the usage of Delaware, by the executive "a a
mttee of Louisiana, though manifestly nec. W.
for the reasons stated has no weight as prsoss
with this majority. Conceding their ground s9a
being irregular, seats as delegates should he "
to the body called by the regular authority ,nS a
to the body assembled by no responsible au ula
whatever, and especially when the former reD,sI
ed the great body of the party and the ,t, %
not All these considerations, however, hs,sh%
disregarded by the majority of the commits y
have persisted by . vote Of l6 to 8 to award
seats as delegates to the representatives of the
organizing minority convention.
In the case of Arkansas, the majority of ths 49,
mittee propose to divide out the seats to all ,a's
cants. IN this State the democratic party yr
about ASSEMBLING in their district conventions "'
ssting Of delegates from the several counties Of ".
State, for the nomination of membecs of Con,s'
When their delegates returned from Charleston
in Texas, there was not time for the assembin, N
State Convention In these district Converts
delegates were selected to represent the par,r n
Baltimore. A call was, however, issued in Nr'
pbis paper, without any signature whatever, calm,
upon the people Of the northern district to assem-
in mass meeting at Madison, to elect delegas N
Baltimore.
Some four or five hundred men from ten to tvt,
counties thus assembled, and appointed three d.
gates to Baltimore. The majority of the commit,
propose to allow these men to vote in the conven,r
There are twenty-seven counties and $4,000 yO,n
in the district COL Hindman, delegate elecs
by the district convention to Baltimore. was elecI
to Congress in 1858 by $4,000 majority and W.
unanimously renominated by the convention whA
selected him as delegate to Baltimore These hr,
show the significance of the action of the disrn
conventions in elccting delegates to Baltimore A
representing truly the sentiment of the democnt,
party Of the district and they exhibit the utter \.
significance of the anonymously called conveutiu
for it will be borne in mind that it was bR
at a central point, at the western terminus Of In
railroad from Memphis, and where several stage and
wagon routes meet They were elected as deegss
generally from the State to the National Conyenlw
with the hope that they might get in without sny
definite claim
In Massachusetts, and Missouri the contests ar,
between principals now holding their seats and sub
stitutes who held their places at Charleston h
each case the principal was detained at home By
sickness in his family. In each case the princi,,
gave notice to his substitute that he should TAXI
his seat at Baltimore. The majority Of the Com
mittee hold that the principals, elected as such b.
the proper conventions, are not entitled to thsiI
seats, and have reported accordingly. We boil
that substitute is appointed simply to act in Ii
absence of the principal, and that his authort
ceases whenever the principal makes his appearanc
and takes his seat. We emphatically declare tn,
such has been the invariable usage in all conysl
tons of the party, whether national or State, an
that it is based on reason and the representa-,
principle.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
ISAAC l. STEVENS, Oregon,
A. R. SPEER. New Jersey,
H. M NORTH, Pennsylvania,
JOHN H. BEWL LEY, Delaware.
E. W. HUBBARD, Virginia,
R. R. BRIDGERS, North Carolina,
VIM II. CARROLL, Tennessee,
GEO. Il. MORROW, Kentucky,
D. S. GREGORY, California
| In the points of difference between the major
| and minority reports of the committee on crede
tials, concur in the conclusions of the minority
port in the cases Of Georgia, Alabama, Missouri Al
| Massachusetts,.
AARON V. HUGHES, New Hampshire