Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-06-25
NUMBER 151,

had lurlSdction' Was il not the "CredniiaL Of all
persons caiRing seGfs, &c. niai By m, sec,on NJ
dricgaieS nj ChaTesionY' This Convention dccded for
itself whccr raeadcs had occurred. The Democracy
Of the States, affected by such withdrawal in every
instance, by appointing delegates anew, virtually ad-
mhtcd that vacancies had occurred. The claimants
who appeared before your Committee, by accepting a
appoiu cn admitted that fact and the gentlemen
Of ise minority stuitily their statement by acting
on these very cases.
II there racancies by secession, there was no
thing for the Committee to do in respect 10 such
Out upon such nonsense!
Secondly, In attempting TO show the Inconsistency OF
the majority report these gentlemen state that dele
gates were recommended 10 seats who had not been
appointed or rcaccredcd TO Baltimore after their
ccssion at Charleston. To this Hat denial u given
This denial = based upon the evidence that before
the Committee. ln every case 20 wit, in Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi, louisiana Arkansas and Texas,
the parties admitted To seats by the majority report had
been seyetaliy elected, appointed or reaccreded ~
some FORM since the adjournment at Charleston. Of
this fact, Of the evidence IS relable) successful
tradictOn j. challenged.
The minority gentlemen again stuitify themselves
for they show that reelection took place in three States
but they strangely forgot 10 state the fact established
before the Committee, that Me-srs Baysrd and White
ley were npp0infsd according 10 the rIes OF the Demo
cracy of New Castle county, Delaware, and the Texas
delegation we're directed by the Executive Committee OF
that State repair TO Baltimore. II was in evidence
before the Committee that this customary mode
IN those States of making nominations and appointing
delegates, &c. lhc Committee considered II tanta-
mount 10 a re-appontment. But what Of Mississippi
Is it not The boast of some of the Mississippi delegation.
that they have been reapponted since their
without opposition; II there has not been a cleo
ton how it that delegates here from M.sis-
sppi who were not at Charleston The credentials OF
this delegation show upon their face that they were ap-
pointed by the Convention that sat the 30Ih aud 3st
of May, 1902 The temerty of the gentlemen is with
out parallel. No neic election IN Mississippi
The following Of the reasons which inhu-
cnccd the decision of the majority Of the Committee in
respect 10 the claimants from Alabama of which l.. T.
Walker is Chairman. lie and his associate, claim TO
have been appointed by Convention that sat on the
lth Of June instant Several OF these not secsds
at Charleston. Mark hi, fact. But where these
delegates appointed on the 4h Of June 10 gO;to what
Convention They were instructed by the COnSen, lion
that appointed them 10 r,pair 10 Richmond aud co op
aie irifh the d'LSaies cf that Conrfnicn, Sc.
Ih, is written upon the face Of the credentials which
were before your Committee. II is true a little lower
down in the same paper, they "accredted" Ia lh,
Convention.
These gentlemen were considered 10y your Committee,
for this and other reasons, delegates to the Richmond
Convention and not TO this. a rowing commission!
suppose their Instructions had included Conventions Ot
The Black Republican, al Chicago and of the Mormons
of ltal-wOud this Convention allow them seats after
they had boxed the compass under such rowing COM
mission; Your Committee sand no, aud every true
Democrat throughout the land viii respond no, APP
plause and some Kisses
Iro nE covrfNrrp1