Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-07-04

The Contested Seats at Baltimore. ,,-.
Having heretofore published the majority and
minority reports Of the COMMITTEES on Credentials
of the Baltimore Convention, We give below the
reasons presented by Mr.. Krum, chairman Of the
majority, for the recommendations made to the
Convention by the majority. =
Mr.. Krum said he desired to place before the con-
vention his views briefly, in relation to few points
in connection with the majority report of the CON-
mittee on credentials. The gentleman then pro.
ceeded to read from somewhat lengthy printed
communication from the committee. "a
The following is the review of the minority re-
port of the committee on credentials read by Mr.
Krum:
It will be observed that the majority report con-
tains only the conclusionsand OF the
committee This is the usual course Committees are
the chosen organs for investigation of deliberatve
bodies Their reports co1fided in and unless as
sailed, stand unquestioned In the matter now be-
fore the convention, the report of the committee is
assaed by minority report, (signed by |. ). Stew
ems and eight others,) and a statement OF certain
premises and labored argument have been present.
ed by the minority Of the committee to support the
conclusions of this minority.
The statements contained in this minority report,
on which the main argument of these gentlemen is
founded, are for the most part naked assumptions,
not established by any evidence before the commit
tee, and depend entirely for their verify upon the
mere ipse dirit of the gentlemen who make them.
The task of exposing the misstatements contain
ed in this minority report is an easy one. and will
be done in terse but unmistakabe language. In the
brief space of fifteen minutes the most salient points
can only be noticed If the facts assumed by these
gentlemen have foundation as matter of course
their argument based upon them falls to the ground.
Now to the work:
First 1t is asserted that the withdrawal from this
Convention of certain delegates, not resignG-
ton that the racancies referred to lin the resolu-
ton of this convention had reference to the conti-
gency of oacancies at the time of reassembling &c.,
!. e. prospective vacancies! A holder absurdity
was never uttered. Now what was the subject
matter Of which the committee had jurisdiction
Was it not the Credentials Of all persons claiming
seats &C., made vacant by the secession of delegates
at Charleston"
This convention decided for itself whether vacan-
ces had occurred. The Democracy of the States,
affected by such withdrawal, in every instance, by
appointing delegates anew, virtually admitted that
vacancies had occurred. The claimants who ap-
peared before your committee, by accepting new
appointment admitted the fact, and the gentlemen
of the minority stultify their statement by act
ing on these very cases.
If there were no vacancies by secession, there
was nothing for the committee to do in respect to
such cases. Out upon such nonsense
Secondly In attempting to show the inconsistent
cy of the majority report, these gentlemen state
that delegates were recommended to seats who had
not been rc-appointcd reaccredited to Baltimore
after their secession at Charleston.
To this fiat denial is given. This denial is bas-
ed upon the evidence that was before the commit
tee In every case, to wit: in Alabama, Georgia.
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas, the
parties admitted to seats by the majority report had
been severally elected appointed or re-accredited
in form, since the adjournment at Charleston. OF
this fact IF the evidence is reliable successful con-
tradlction is challenged.
for they show that reflections took place in three
States but they strangely forgot to state the fact
Established before the committee,) that Messrs
Bayard and Whitley were reappointed accorded to
the rules of the Democracy of New Castle Co.,
Delaware, and the Texas delegation were directed
by the Executive Committee of that State to repair
to Baltimore 1t was IN evidence before the COM
mittee that this was a customary mode in those
States of making nominations and appointing dele
gates, &c. The committee considered it tantamount
to re-appointment
But what of Mississippi? Is it not the boast Of
some of the Mississippi delegation that they have
been reappointed since their secession without op
positiony If there has not been new election,
how comes it that delegates are here from Mississp
pi who were not at Charlestonr The credentials of
this delegation show upon their face that they were
appointed by the Convention that sat on the 30th
and 31st of May, 1860. The temerity of the gen.
temen is without parallel. No new election in
Mississippi?
The following are some reasons which influenced
the decision of the majority Of the committee in re-
spect to the claimants from Alabama, of which L.
p Walker is chairman. He and his associates
claim to have been appointed by q convention that
sat on the 4th of June inst Several Of these were
not seceders at Charleston. Mark this fact! But
where were these delegates appointed on the 4h Of
June to go-to what convention? They were in
structed by the convention that appointed them to
. repair to Richmond and cooperate with the dele
gates Of that convention.
This is written upon the face Of the credentials
which were before your committee. 1t is true, q
little lower down, in the same paper, they are "ac-
credited to this convention.
These gentlemen were considered by your com.
mttee, for this and other reasons, as delegates to
the Richmond convention and not to this. A rowing
commission! Suppose their instructions had in
cluded conventions of the black Republicans at
Chicago, and of the Mormons of Utah--would this
convention allow them seats after they had boxed
the compass under such rowing commission
Your committee said No and every true Democrat
throughout the land will respond No!
ARKANSAS.
In the Arkansas case, the applicants for seats
show so regularity of record. The seceders from
Charleston having vacated their seats by the act of
secession, the committee felt it their duty either to
recommend to the convention the exclusion of both
sets of applicants the of irregularity to