East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1860-08-02

from South Carolina, Georgia, and Az
kansas. These delegations withdrew IN
the most formal manner not contenting
themselves with speeches on the subject,
but delivering written protests to be en-
tered at largo upon the journal OF the
convention.
EXCUSES FOR THE SECESSION AT CHI ADHESION.
Various excuses have been assigned
for this extraordinary conduct, but none
of them, in our judgement, will bear ex-
animation. 1t has been said, for instance,
that the convention adopted an unfair
lIe of votiong, or one which enabled
minoi;ty of the delegates to contro! the
majority. Here is the rule in so many
words:
"That in any State ~hich has not provided or d.
rected, by its State convection how its vote may be
given the convention will recognize the right Of each
delegate to cast his individual voe"
This rule was adopted on Tuesday
April "a, by vote of 394 against 207
delegates, which sufficiently demonstrates
its fairness, if any demonstration were
requisite. 1t acknowledges the right o.
every State to bind her delegates, but Sc
cures to each delegate his own vote, as
against any combination of his colleagues
where the State has not chosen thus to
subordinate him. The rule was applied,
at Charleston, in the decision of all ques
tions; and no complaint was then made
of it lin their protests or their speeches.
by the delegations which withdrew. The
first complaint, SO far as we can ascertain
was in the address published by eighteen
members of Congress after the conven-
tion had adjourned from Charleston to
Baltimore. The rule operated as hardly
upon the one side as upon the other; wit
ness the fact that delegates from Ala
bama and Louisiana were compelled tc
withdraw from the convention, by the
act of their collegeagues, against their
own will, and that ten delegates from
Georgia who remained in the convention
were not allowed to vote (under Genera
Cushing's decision) because majority oi
the delegation had withdrawn.
OF what possible Importance can the
assertion be that different result, either
in regard to the platform or the candi-
dates, would have attended rule author
izing each delegate to control his own,
vote, without reference to the instruc-
tions of his State? In New York, Ala
bama, Indiana and Louisiana, for exam
pie, the convention which instructed the
delegates was the convention which ap-
pointed them; and but that all these dele.
gates were understood to accept their ap-
pointments, severally, with an obligation
to obey the instructions, it is very certain
the convention would, in each case, have
made other appointments. And, after
all, how much reliance can be placed in
assertions or calculations as to what any
delegate would have done, at Charleston,
in different circumstances? All such as
sertions or calculations are based on ru-
mors, surmises, information at second
hand, or assurance privately signified.
We could, by the same style of argu.
ment, refute the whole of them; but VIC
choose to deal with the subject as men,
and not to amuse ourselves within suppo
sitions or possibilities. The method Of
voting was an affair to be determined by
the convention; and it was determined at
Charleston, as we have shown, by ma
jority Of almost two-thirds.
Another complaint is, that the report
of the majority of the committee on res
olutions was not adopted by the conven.
tion-as being the voice of a majority OF
the States. Several answers suggest
themselves at once.
l. Such was not the method of voting
adopted by the convention, and never had
been the method in any previous conven'
ton.
2. If the rule had been that ma jori-
ty of the committee should prescribe the
platform, and not majority Of the con-
vention, it is evident from their votes
(afterward given) that several of the
States would have chosen other repre-
sentatives upon the committee.
3. The first majority report, as we
have shown, was not acceptable to the
delegations which subsequently retired,
Every one of them voted for its recon-
mitment.
4. The second report of the commit
tee never did, as whole, command the
assent Of majority, the committeeman
from Missouri General Clark announc-
ing that he would move, at the proper
time, to strike out this all important res
olution:
sThat it is duty of the Federal government, IL
all its departments to protect when necessary, the
rights of persons aud property in the Territories and
wherever else it's constitutional authority extends"
1t required the committeeman from
Missouri to constitute the majority (sev-
entcen) of which we have heard so much.
Without farther argument, therefore, this
pretext disappears.
1t has been said, finally, that the States
which favored the second majority plat
form were democratic States, and that
all the others were hopeless, or, at least,
unreliable. We could, ifit were nccessa-
ry, prove this to be untrue; but, even If
it were true in the largest sense, what
folly to be governed by such considera-
tions: Those seventeen States had not
majority of all the electoral votes, and
could accomplish nothing without assist.
ancc. No wise general, upon the eve Of
an engagement, would subtract from the
weakest column Of his army in order to
reinforce the strongest he would, on thc
contrary, take means TO strengthen the