Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-06-26
DEMOCRATIC .aas1ls
NATIONAL CONVENTION
FRIDAYS PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED.

FRIDAYS PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED.
In the Arkansas case, the applicants for seats show
no regularity of record The seceders from Charles
ton having vacated their seats by the act of secession,
the Committee felt il their duty either recommend 10
the Convention the exclusion OF both of applicants
on the of iTregularity, or to admit both. The
two district Conventions that alleged to have sus-
tanned the action of the seceders aud to have accredited
them to Baltimore, had, by their own admission, no
power to act in the premises and therefore their action
does not enttle the applicants 10 seats IN the COnven-
ton The opposing claimants were appointed by con-
venton called, upon notice, in the usual way by ndyi-
duas not possessing official character, and they are
therefore, technically speaking entitled than
the others TO seats but the Committee, dlsregardng
echnicaites and not desiring to leave the Democracy
of Arkansas unrepresented this floor, decided TO
commend that all the claimants be admitted to seats in
the Convention the terms and conditions specified IN
their report.
In the Louisiana it is clearly demonstrated like
wise, that according to strict usage neither of the dele
cations entitled to be received by this Convention
The seceders from Charleston did not presc It them
selves before a Convention fresh from the people,
but the old Convention which had adjourned sine die
land therefore had by its act and the usage OF he
party terminated its legal exisence) was caledi ;ci or
10 endorse the action of the seceders That 50 d
Convention had therefore no more right than any ia
number of other individual Democrats to me to act
as the representatives of the Democracy of Louisiana
Their proceedings in any OF no force or va
dity, and their action in re-accredng the seeding
delegation to Baltimore gross usuPaton OF power
on their part
On the other hand the delegation whose admission
has been recommended by the Committee was appointed
bv Convention assembled at Donaldsonvile composed
of Delegates from twenty-one parishes, (ncludmg the
city of New Orleans out of thirty mine parishes IN the
State. 1t is true that the call for the Democracy OF
the State to send delegates to the Convention made
by individual Democrats and by two distinct Democra-
| tic clubs but nasmuch as the State Executive Com
mittee refused TO call Convention, and thus APP
peal TO the Democracy to endorse or condemn the ac-
| fInn of ipIr del
from the Convention, there other course TO be
pursued than for known and distinguished members OF
the party to issue the CALL and Tor The Democracy 10
sustain ii by the appointment oil delegates IN accord
| ance with such call An emergency had arisen, and
! inasmuch as the Executive Committee had refused TO
! act it seemed to the Committee that there was no
other course left the Democracy of Louisiana, but
to assemble in Convention upon the spontaneous call Of
! individual Democrats.
The admission of both Of the delegations presenting
! themselves from Georgia recommended because
| the Committee believed that each OF those delegations
represent the opinions and sentiments OF part OF the
! Democracy of the State The withdrawal from the
Convention of part of ITS members was occasoned,
as the evidence before the Committee demonstrated, by
a difference OF construction between them AMI their
associates upon certain points IN the Democratic plat
| form Two Conventions each claiming to be the
rect and only opponents of the Democratic sentiment
of the State, held and each appointed deega-
ton to this Convention. The regularity OF both of
these Conventions was involved in doubt. AT all events
one does not regular than the other After
a full Investigation of the facts IN this case the Com
mittee deemng it of the highest importance that the
harmony OF the party IN Georgia required that both
delegations should be admitted upon the floor Of the
Convention, with equal privileges, recommended to
the Convention in their report. 1t IS undenlable that
the appointing pnwer in both cases was composed of
delegates fresh from the ranks OF the Democracy, aud
i'm the opinion of the Committee, the irregularities al
legged in either not sufficient 10 justify the
exclusion of either of the delegations.
The Committee consisted OF twenty-five members,
and the majority report received the sanction of six
tecn as to the greater portion of il aud the whole Is
approved by fifteen The minority report is approved
altogether by nine and but partially by one member.
Practically, them the question Is presented by the
minority report, shall the statements and opinions OF
nine gentlemen outweigh and oyerbalance the state
meuts and opinions OF fifteen OF equal responsibility,
/ touching the natter
Mr. Brown, Of North Carona-ll is with very great
reluctance that venture TO nterpose few words upon
this occasion Sir, it would give me Infinitely more
pleasure pour oil the agtltcd waves which now
disturb US than TO say anything which would have
! contrary effect.
Mr.. Sibey, of Minnesota rise to point Of order.
| Mr. Brown, of North Carona-l ask leave of this
Convention to make an explanation a. to matter OF
! fact within my personal knowledge
Mr. Slbey, OF MInnesota-lhe gentleman has anti
cpated nay point Of order by asking consent to speak
| Mr. German of Mnncsota-lhe necessity Of the
case requires that shall insist upon the point Of order
Mr. Stevens of Oregon rise to a personal expla-
nation.
Mr. Stuart, of Michigan must object.
Mr.. Stevens have only two sentences to say.
Mr. Stuart must object.
The Prcsdcnt-ThG Chair must administer the rules
of the Convention which preclude debate in this stage
/ Of the business.
! Mr. Steyeus-I appeal to the gentleman 10 allow me
! to make personal explanation.
Mr.. Stuart-NO gentleman will 90 farther than my
self in relation personal matters, but it Is obvious
! all that we must proceed with business. Applause
The Pre-ident-The Chairman will state that the
first question ~ the order OF motion aud OF Is the
proposition OF the gentleman from Oregon Mr.. Ste
yeusJ That gentleman moves certain matter As a sub
! stiiutc for The report o. the Committee. The Chair
understand, that motion to be equivalent 20 a motion
10 strike ont aud insert, and although the Char feels
that there may be doubt as TO what she Ia be the
construction OF a like ths and indeed, Of v nat
j. the true construction OF the universal rule lat u
ton to strike out and insert IS ndIysibe, wltr. 60
n- 20 the extent that the universal deC.aTat applies
! 10 thI, motion, what Is behind the mot. %. The
Chair has, reelection, come 20 the cOncSif q rIle
that this motion 10 strike out and insert is ncysDle;
and therefore, unless oycTued by the COnycu on, the
Chair will be prepared TO put The question upon The
ries Of resolutions IN block Having come TO that con
clusion of course upon priRa fsce reflection upon
the subject, the Char will be subject 10 be instructed
and directed by the Contention. The Chair had
| ccyed that II the resolutions Of the gentleman from
! Oregon OR. Stevens should be adopted, then they
would be dyisiblc, and the separate propositions
tanned in the report OF the minority would be suscepti
bic of being voted upon separately; if the motion
for substitution should be rejected, then, upon the Con-
yenOn being brought 10 vote upon the resolutions of
the gentleman from Missouri MIR. krum) those propo-
sitions woulc De separabe. Upon this view of the
whole case, ,h Chair has arrived at this primd tIcie
conclusion, subject to be instructed directed by the
| Convention.
Mr.. Cochrane, of New York. shall appeal from
the decision OF the Chair, merely to make an explana
ton to the Convention upon the ruling of the Chair;
and having made that explanations shall leave it to
the contemplation and Judgment of the Chair and with
draw the appeal. 1t Is undoubtedly true that the
ton TO strike out and insert is ndysble; the motion
to strike out and inserting independent proposition
OF the majority report Is ndlvisbe. But the rule Is
applicable TO that and nothing more that is, if upon
| the first branch of the majority report the motion
should be made to strike out that branch and insert the
first branch OF the minority report, that motion would
be ndysibe. That the extent of the application of
| the rule of the House. But that does not reach an
amendment IN the nature of a substitute. That mo-
ton, think Is as dyisible being n substitute it
would be II IT was simple motion to amend; for the
substitute is nothing more than amendment of the
nature of a substitute. now Withdraw my appeal.
| Cries of "question!" question"
| The President-The Chair will repeat that he sug-
gested the doubt in his mind behind this question,
whether the motion Of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Stevens might might not involve dvisble matter;
but he concluded still that il would be convenient
for him TO rule upon that which is the priuia tacie
sruction of the rule Of the Convention If that prima
ace construction be not correct then the Chair would
be most gladly instructed or overruled by the Conyen
ton.
Cries Of question:" question"
The President-Before putting the question the Chair
desires to remind the Convention that he informed the
Convention yesterday that he had been requested to lay
before the Convention a communication from gentle
men from Arkansas He had no opportunity OF having
IT read then; he again informs the Convention that he
has been requested TO present that communication in
order TO have il read.