The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-07-13


iervene IN favor of Slavery 40 the Territories.
The Convention regarded both propositions as
erroneous in principle, and adhered to the old
doctrine OF the party that it belonged TO the
people 10 regulate their domestic affairs in their
own way, subject only 10 the Constitution of the
United States. True, there was, to some ex-
tent, difference Of opinion as TO the tune when
the right TO legisate on the subject OF slavery
commenced. But the Convention, by all al
most unanimous vote, disposed of this subject,
! by resolution declaring it the duty Of all good
citizens TO abide by the decisions of the Supreme
! Court upon tals question.
! The right TO hold slave property 10 the Ter
ritories. even against an enactment of the Ter
rltoria legislature, involving as it does, case
at law, or in equity, as well as the constitution
/ ality OF the supposed law, is committed by the
/ Constitution directly TO the judiciary. Should
| the decision OF that tribunal be in favor OF the
! right t0 hold the slave, all the powers Of the
! Federal government are pledged to enforce the
! Judgment. This is substantially the doctrine of
! he platform, unanimously adopted at Reading,
! in March, 1860.
| The second and only remaining reason given
/ by themselves, 10 Justify their secession, was
/ the action the Convention on the contested
/ seats. Here it will be well to observe
that had not the first secession taken place, no
such reason as the second would ever have
1 sted. II then the judgment of the country
should be that the adoption Of the Cincinnati
/ platform was no good cause of complaint,
/ the entire responsibility for the present state OF
! affairs rests with me Ssceders. Had they re-
/ NAMED in the Convention at Charleston, there
would have been no contested seats at Balti-
more.
! We have already seen that majority, or 1872
! delegates, constituted Quorum, aud that the
! Convention was 10 Judge OF the qualifications oi
/ its own members. From such decision there
could be no appeal la our State, the Lower
( House OF the Legislature, consists Of 100 m~m-
/ befs, 81 being quorum the Senate consists oi
/ 80 members, IL being quorum, Suppose ten
/ seats IN the House aud five in the Senate are
/ contested. They are, however, settlrd-eyen
! enormously if YOU please. Some law receives
20 votes in Ihe Lower House with % against 1t,
and 9 votes m The Senate with 3 against H. De-
ing signed by the Governor, even though ; Of
I the 9 votes in the Senate and o OF the 26 IN
I the House We're members WhOsr seats were con-
tested, it becomes as binding upon all the ciii.
/ zenS OF the Commonwealth as though it had re-
celved one hundred votes in the House and SO
IN the Senate, and no seat in si:her branch had
ever been c,atrsteh. As we'll might the crimi-
| nal oa his way 10 The gaI!ows, or to the prison.,
/ call uP9a The people to assemble in town meet
ing for his rescue. because the laws whicb tried
and condemned him, were not regularly passed
according 10 his notions of Justice, az for these
/ gentlemen to say that these nominations were
not regular
! But there is no Just ground for complaint.
/ In Massachusetts Mr.. Hallett was elected a
/ delegate, Mr.. Chafpe was elected alternate,
! Mr.. II. could not g 10 Charleston. II. notified
Mr. ChaGrr Of his inability to attend ard as
/ learn he (Mr. H. removed with bis family,
/ from the District. The seat was contested at
Charleston ana decided unanimously in favor
of M CbaG-e. At Baltimore Mr.. II. appear
ed aud claimed his seat. He was rejected In
: Arkansas neIther Convention was regular nor
( in accordance with the usages of the party.
Both were admitted-the seceders with power
to cast two Notes.-The new delegates to cast one.
I The Missouri case was similar to that from
Massachusetts. 10 louisiana two Conventions
were called. The one a Convention of the
/ people--tbe other the old Convention whose
! lime rad expired and who had no more power
/ to send delegates than any other similar number
/ OF individuals accidentally called together.
/ The Gew delegates were admued-the old
/ ones were liable 10 the objection already stated
and also to the same obiec ions hereafter gwen
/ IN the Alabama case. The old Delegate eS from
. Georgia were liable 10 the same objection. Yet,
( the Convention refused to admit tie new dele
| gates aud actually admitted the old Delegates,
because part of the Delegates to the Georgia
/ Convention, by whom the new Delegation was
! Z q first ,t,;,h
who had seeded at Charleston. Il was because
a portion of these had seeded or boIted, that
! their representatives. were rejected.
/ In the State of Alabama, the Delegation ad-
mittet to seats, were chosen by State Con-
vention called together by the people, "for the
! purpose Of appointing Delegates TO the Nation
al Democratic Convention at Baltimore, 10
! nominate candidates who NAV be able TO save
the Government from ;he hands of those who
! will not regard our constitutional rights. and
be the means Of securing The PerPeturfy Of the
! Constitution and ihe Union.''
The Seceders from this State, were rejected.
/ They were elected to the Richmond Coaven-
tiou-a body hostile to the Democratic party
and proposing to nominate their own candidates
The meetings by winch the delegates TO the
State Convention which elected the Seceders.
were chosen and the speeches made at those
| meetings, were almost entirely OF character
| hostile to the Democratic party. One Of their
orators land Deegate) said OF the Baltimore
| Convention, that ''the man who would repre-
sent Alabama in that Convention should be
branded with The brand OF Cain. Though not a
murderer of his kin, be would be a murderer Of
principle aad Of the constitutional rights of his
section, that he would be more than the assas-
sin who bot takes the life Of fellow man."
Others declared ''that to entertain the proD-
nsifinn 10 send daleraieS u RnIt;r,,ro Ill