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

y ty of the several States, to make provision {
!. supplying all vacancies in their respective del
It cations to this convention when it shall rea
/ semble. We call particular attention to IL
= wording Of the resolution. Certain delegat
n had withdrawn. They had placed on the col
s vention the reasons of their withdrawal.
They still, however, were the representative
: Of the Democratic party of their several state
Their withdrawal was not resignation.
!. was not so considered by the convention. Th
i vacancies referred to had reference to the cor
tingency Of vacancies at time OF reassemblint
And the resolution proposed to provide for sur
plying them. The convention did not presum
to touch the question as to whether the with
drawal of the delegates constituted resigns
ton, nor had it any right to interfere in tn
! matter. A resignation must be made to tn
appointing power, and to be complete and fina
must be accepted by the appointing power.
was well known on the adjournment of the con
vention at Charleston that the withdrawn,
delegates desired the instruction OF their severa
constituencies before deciding on their futnr,
course.
Such was the spirit and purpose of their de
liberations at Charleston. They consulted theil
respective constituencies. In every case except
the case Of South Carolina, their constituencies
directed and authorized them--the vacancies
being filled or contemplated in the resolution
OF the convention--to repair to Baltimore, and
there in earnest efforts with their brethren o
the convention, to endeavor once more to unite
their party and promote harmony and peace in
!, the great cause of their country. The resolu
tion of the convention did not PREJUDICE the
question, since 40 strenuously raised that theil
withdrawal was resignation, but left the
whole question to the said delegates, and theil
respective constituencies to the end, and that
every State in the Union might be represented
in Baltimore. .r ..
The committee has passed resolutions decla.
ring by vote Of 16 to 6, that the delegation
from Louisiana, headed by Pierre Soue, by q
vote of IA to II that the delegation from Ala
bama. headed by Parsons and by vote of Is
to 10, that half of each delegation claiming seats
from Georgia, are entitled to seats in the con-
vention. The resolutions recommended by the
undersigned to the convention, declare the right
Of the delegations elected to Charleston, with
vacancies supplied as contemplated in tho reso
luton of the convention to which reference has
been made, and accredited to Baltimore, to said
seats. The committee which thus recommend
ed the irregular delegates from these three
States has rejected the irregular delegates from
Delaware, and admitted the Charleston dele.
gates.
II haa admitted irregular delegates from Ar
kansas. and rejected portion of the Charleston
delegates, as modified by the filling of vacan-
cies. II has admitted the Charleston delegates
from Mississippi by a vote Of 23 to 2, and the
Charleston delegates from Texas by vote of19
to 6. The fact that delegations are not contes
ted does not establish their right to seats in the
convention. There may be irregular delegates
without contest, and there may be contest
between two sets Of irregular delegates. The
right of persons to seats as delegates is to be
determined by the fact as to whether they were
appointed by the constituency which they claim
to represent and appointed according to the usa-
ges of said constituency. Wanting these es-
sential prerequisites they are not entitled to
seats, even il there be no contestants; and hav-
ing these their right to seats is not impaired or
affected by contestants. ~B
The committee in deciding by vote OF 23 to
2, that the Charleston delegates from Mississip-
pi are entitled to seats in the Baltimore conven-
tion have decided rightly, just because they
were duly accredited to Charleston, have never
since resigned, and have received instructions
from the State of Mississippi, through con-
ventlon called fthe Democratic Executive COM
mittee of the State, to return to Baltimore.
The Charleston delegates, both from Alabama
and Georgia, stand in precisely the same posi-
ton. They were also duly accredited to
Charleston. They withdrew and never resign.
ed. They returned to their respective constit
uencies. The Executive committees in these
states, as in the case Of Mississippi, called
convention Of the party. The conventions met.
The delegates, as in the case Of Mississippi sub
mitted their action to the conventions, and the
conventions approved their course, continued
their powers and accredited them to Baltimore
Their rights stand on precisely the same basis
and are sustained by the same authority as in
Mississippi. The contestants were appointed
by no body'authorized to meet according to the
pusages Of the party in these States and are not
entitled to any consideration whatever.
In the case OF Alabama, the convention as
sembled on the call of the Democratic Execu.
tive committee addressed to the Democracy Of
the State,) was very largely attended, nearly
every county in the state having been repre-
sented. A small number fpersons, however,
issued notice, which was published In only
three newspapers in the state--n two papers
the notice was without sgners, and in the third
paper mobile Register) it was signed by John
Forsyth and thirty five Others. The notice in
one paper called upon all Democrats and ell
OTHER persons the second paper, upon all
Democrats and all conservatives, and in the
third paper mobile Register) upon the people
of Alabama, to hold county meetings and send
delegates to state convention. to be held in
Montgomery or Selma, on the 4th day of June,
to appoint delegates to Baltimore. Twenty
eight counties only, out OF fifty two were rep
resented.