The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-07-25

r about half Of the state. Yet the majority O
the committee have endorsed the action Of th
latter as the action of the Democracy OF Ala
bama, aud have repudiated. contrary to all pre-
cedent, usage, right and Justice, the action O
the former, not only this, they have repudiate,
the principles of their own action in the case o
J the Mississippi delegation r. r
But the action ofthe majority of the commit
tee in the case of Georgia has gone one steE
further in its disregard Of the acknowledged
principles of the party. The convention which
the committee put on an equality with the reg
ularly authorized convention, consisted in great
part Of persons who ist participated in the
regular Democratic convention Of the state
The regular called convention consisted of near
ly four hundred delegates, representing nearly
all the counties Of the State. The resolutions
OF the convention having been adopted by q
vote of 299 to Al, these latter withdrew from
the convention atd organised anew. Thus the
majority of your committee have exalted the
pretensions Of less than one eighth of the dele
gates of the State convention to an equality
with the rights Of seven eighths of the Democ.
racy Of the State.
In the case of Louisiana, the old Convention,
which originally appointed the delegates to
Charleston was reassembled on the call of the
executive committee of the state, and by de-
cisive majority accredited the Charleston dele
gates to Baltimore. The reasons for this action
have their parallels in the case of Texas and
Delaware, which have received the sanction of
the committee. In Texas the delegates came
back accredited by the Democratic Executive
committee simply-it being manifest impos-
sibility, from want of time to assemble the par
ty IN state convention and in Delaware, un-
der the usages and rules of the party, the old
convention was reassembled. In Louisiana
there was time to assemble the old convention,
but not to order the election of delegates in the
several parishes to meet in new convention.
The executive did everything it could to get the
expression Of the views Of the State. IL re- as
sembled the old convention, nearly every parish
in the State being represented, and accredited
the Charleston delegates to Baltimore.
But the convention whose delegates to Bal
tmore have been endorsed by the majority of
your committee, was called at the instance of
two local organizations and OF DIR. Cottman, a
former member of the National Executive com.
mittee Of the party. The calls were somewhat
conflicting. The notices did not reach many
parishes in the State. Only 21 parishes out of
80 are pretended to be represented, and in sew.
eral OF these there is no reason to doubt the
fact that the delegates did not leave behind them
single constituent agreeing with them in SEN
timents. In not single parish was this call
responded to by a majority of the Democratic
voters The convention only represented a
very small portion of the party-it was totally
irregular, besides.
The majority OF the committee object to the
action Of the old convention on its re-assem-
bling at the call of the executive committee,
on the ground that it was defunct and could
not be brought to life. Yet it endorses the &C.
tion Of the other convention on the call in part
of the equally defunct member of the national
committee, DR.. Cottman. The following, the
usage of ofDelaware, by the Executive committee
of Louisiana, though manifestly necessity for
the reason stated, has no weight as precedent
with this majority, Conceding their ground
ofts being irregular, seats as delegates should
be given to the body called by the regular au-
thoritv and not to the body assembled by no
responsible authority whatever, and especially
when the former represented the great body OF
the party and the latter did not. All these
considerations however, have been disregarded
by the majority Of the committee, who have
persisted by vote of 16 to 8 to award the seats
as delegates to the representatives of the disor-
ganizing minority convention.
In the case of Arkansas, the majority of the
committee propose to divide out the seats to all
applicants-in this state the Democratic party
were about assembling in their district conven-
tions, conventions consisting OF delegates from
the several counties of the state for the nomi
nation of members Of Congress, when their DEL
there was not time for the assembling ofa State
convention. In these district conventions, del
egates were selected to represent the party at
Baltmore--a call was issued in Memphis pa.
per, without any signature Whatever, calling
upon the people of the northern district to as
semble in mass meeting at Madison, for the
election OF delegates to Baltimore. 1
Some four or five hundred men from 10 to
IL counties thus assembled and appointed three
delegates to Baltimore. The majority of the
committee propose TO allow these men to vote
in the convention. There are 27 counties and
$4,000 voters in the district. Col. Hindtnan,
delegate elected by the district convention to
Baltimore, was elected to Congress in 1858 by
1900 majority, and was unanimously re-nomi-
mated by the convention which selected him as
d delegate to Baltimore. These facts show the
significance of the action of tho district conven-
ton in electins delegates to Baltimore as rep
resenting truly the sentiment OF the Democrat
ic party of the district, and they exhibit the ut
ter insignifcance of the anonymously called
convention, for it will be borne in mind that
it was held OF the central point, at the western
terminus of the railroad from Memphis, and
where several stage and wagon routes meet
They were elected as delegates generally from
the State to the national convention with the
hope that they might get in without any definite
claim.