Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-05-05

Third Because, under the rule and in obedience to its
requirement. The delegates Of the s Of Georgia BY the IN
questioned ruling Of The President CT the Convention, de-
rei Of the privilege Of voting according to their individual
F6 Because the consistent ruling the President OF the
Convention oTerrued By majority Of the votes Of delega
oas Who themselves under the censant Of provisions
Therere The undersigned the rights the
egn STATE Of New jersey have been inngd s great wrong
Charleston this first dayof Nay in the one thou.
sand eight hundred and sixty.
For Fifth Congressional District.
WIN. wRIoHr. yOHS Q: RAFSERTV.
A. R. sPEER JOHN hENfLER
DAVID NAAR. 8. DouGHgT.
SAMUEL HANEA.
The question being announced on the motion Of
Mr.. McCOOk
Mr. C0CHRANE moved to amend by substituting
4 O'Clock
Mr.. PUGH suggested that the delegations from
several States having obtained consent to retire. it
was breach Of pivilege to take the vote in their
absence on such a motion.
Mr.. GREENE. of North Carolina, asked if it was
courteous to the delegates who had leave to retire,
TO pass this resolution now.
The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks that since
the House had given unanimous consent to retire
for consultation, it had virtually agreed not TO di-
vide the House during their absence.
Mr.. RICHARDSON. Suppose one delegation had
leave to retire and did not return must the conven
ton be delayed from action by their absence?
Mr.. McC0OK had no desire to take advantage Of
the absence Of any delegates.
The PRESIDENT. The question will first be on
secondng the call for the previous question. moved
by Mr.. McCoOz
Mr. McCOOK withdrew the call for the previous
question
Mr. BIDWELL, of California, said California had
seen with pain and regret the events OF yesterday
and to-day, and hoped her position had not tended
to produce this result He understood the position
of California to be, ever since the passage Of the
KansasNebraska Act Of 1854, that non-interYention
was Just and proper but not that nOn-intervenuon
which would give the Territorial Legislatures the
right destroy the rights of property of any State
in the Territories The State Legislatures had no
power to destroy the rights Of property, and GER
tainly a Territorial Legislature can have no such
power. III 1859, when it said that California
was in favor of slave code, she had passed resolu-
ton defining her position which he read, and which
took strong nOn-intervention ground, leaving all
questions of the rights Of property TO be settled by
the courts California did not intend to destroy the
rights of any section, though she might differ IN the
means by which such rights may be best protected II
the California delegation had done aught here to
bring about the unfortunate events that had occur
red they would not be held blaneless by their con
stituents he had voted for the minority resolution
reenactng the Cincinnati Platform. and it was one
of the proudest acts of his life lie had also sup
ported the preamble and first resolution in the MI
nority platform, which had been rejected. He had
intended to offer series of resolutions which he
thought would have met the views of the Conven-
tion and which he would yet offer They were as
follows:
l. Resolved That tie Platform asopted by the Cincinnati Con-
ventiou in 1856 is hereby affirmed
O. Resolved Thatto entitle Territory form Constitution
for admission into the Union sovereign State il should CON
tain reasonable number Of Inhabitants which should not Dc
less than number required for Representatives. Congress
g. Resolved That the true Interpretation OF the Cincinnati
Platform hereby declared to be that the right 10 aod slaves IN
Territory upon The same ground and is entitled to the
SAINT protection, as other property.
Resolved That any inacon OF the rights OF property IN
Territory would be judicial question: and that it is the duty OF
Congress to pass such laws as may be necessary to secure the
sesolved, That Congress has the power at any time to
change repeal any Territorial organic act and to revise
annui any Territorial law conflicting herewith.
He concluded by moving the previous question on
behalf Of Mr.. MeCOOk.
Mr. McCOOK again withdrew his call for the pre-
vious question. in favor of
Mr. 4. SMITH, of California, who said he could
not sit silent and hear oneeighth OF the delegation Of
that State misrepresened by LACK sheep of the
flock The State of California mad repudiated the
doctrine of Popular Sovereignty.
Mr. PATRICK, of California denied the right Of
either delegates TO speak for him.
Mr.. a. SMITH, did speak for the gentleman, I'M
less he chooses to eat his words for he had ex
presslv voted for the majority platform and repu-
dated most emphaticaly, the doctrine of Squatter
Sovereignty in their own State Conventions and In
their votes The Douglasites and the GrOggenites
had united with their fellow Black Republicans, but
the Democracy had OverthrOwn them all He re-
viewed with some severity, the course Of the North
ern Democracy, who had truckled to Abolitonism
in its new phase of Popular Sovereignty.
Mr. GALLAGHER, Of Connecticut L claim the
attention of the convention.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from CalifOr-
MA has the floor.
Mr.. GALLAGHER. The gentleman from Califor.
MIA has no right to SANDER the Democrats of Con.
necticut. and, lash in hand, to attack those with
whom he acted.
After considerable irrelevant debate,
Mr. MCCOOK was satisfied this discussion was
taking a range which not calculated to DO
any good, and he, therefore, without intending
any discourtesy to any person avalled himself OF
the parliamentary privilege to call TIE pre7ious
question.
Mr.. SEWARD. of Georgia. desired to explain
why as one of the minority, Of the Georgia dele
CATION, he was here. He had been in Congress at
the time of the passage Of the Kansas and Nebras-
ka bill, and he knew that the construction of the
whole South of the principle Of that bill was that
it recognized Popular Sovereignty. The Missouri
Compromise was repealed at the demand of the
South The amendment was proposed by Gen.
Dixon, of Kentucky. This could be established by
reference to the Congressional Globe. The North
told them then the perilS they encountered by sup
porting this Dill, but they did so because deeming
it TO be right, and he saw before him those who
had fallen the field of political strife in their
States because Of their fidelity to the South on
that issue. He should, therefore, go home to his
State and call upon his constituents to stand bv their
own honor and justify the acts of the Northern De-
mOcracy. He denied that the South had a right to
cast firebrand into the Democratic camp by fore
ing Jpn them the doctrine Of Congressional inter
ference.
Mr. HOLDEN, of North Carolina had come here
to demand of the convention the recognition of the
doctrine of nOu-interventiOn. He was in favor TO-
day, of the Cincinnati Platform, pure and simple
coupled with the determination to abide by the de-
CisOn of the Supreme Court. lie came here to a
national not to a sectional convention. His sym
9th with he nd wi W
upheld her rights the most resOlutely, but he
should pause before he took a step fraught with
danger to the Union, and in the Democratic party
he believed the only safety Of the Union, the
only security of the South. He should, there
fore abide by the action of the convention as a
National Convention composed of a majority of
States. If the majority of the convention should
leave, and the Chairman be no longer supported by
a majority, he should then withdraw and go
home and do the best he could for his native land
[Applausel
Mr.. RICHARDSON, of Illinois, sustained the
statement of the gentleman from Georgia. Mr.. Sew
ard as to the understanding of the kansasNCbras-
ka bill in Congress at the time Of its enactment
He should abide by the understanding and
| agreement then made regardless of the cOnsequen-
ces to himself at home abroad He reviewed
the action of Congress and the position of South
ern and Northern men upon that bill. The North
only said now to the South make no new demand
upOn us. Our honor and self-respect forbid that
taken and now hold. 1t was said that the North
had no interest at stake in the matter. They had
honor and manhood at stake, however and this
was dearer to them than property. When com
mon enemy threatened the country, all were ready
to deliver up their property and their lives, If need
be, for the common country. So was it with the
North. She would deliver up property or life, II
necessary, all but honor to the safety and to the
rights of the South. He had himself stood up in
! Congress in support of the Kansas Nebraska bill
! and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. lie
went through the subsequent struggles and he knew
what they were. They had placed themselves on the
ground of nOn-nteryentIOn then, and they stood on
! it still lie knew that slavery would go into the
Territories and would go then wherever soil and eli
mate permitted it. Where nature against it, it
/ would not 90. He asked the South where would be
| the Justice, where the wisdom, of paralyzing the
! rights of the South.
| Mr. PERRY, of South Carolina, begged to say few
| words He stood there Southern Union Democrat
"a Southern man in heart and feeling identified with
the South in all her interests and sentiments, but be-
eving it to be the ininterest Of the State to rema
| in the Union, and that the Union should be preserv
! ed if il was possible TO preserve It. Allusion had
u l. a. lou Nah. 81