Daily national Democrat., 1860-08-02
The Boilers again Answered.

was signed by nine delegates, while the ma
jority report was signed by sixteen. Fur.
thermore, the majority report was adopted,
in almost every particular, by an overwhelm-
ing majority of the Convention. The thing
was therefore settled. Right or wrong, in
the abstract, it was settled, and Democratic
usage required that the minority should sub.
nit Instead of that, they boted.
The reasons that they have for boiling rea
the entire basis upon which the Breckenridge
party now stand, and they make desperate
efforts to manufacture the appearance of a
good cause. 1t is in vain. They are Boilers
and there is no getting around it, They re.
fused to abide By the action of the majority
The Express argues that the majority acted
wrongly. The Express has no right to ques-
tion the action Of the majority, for it is final.
But, in order to show how baseess is its
every argument and alternative, we,will take
the trouble to answer its preposterous as
sumptions. Basing its remarks upon the mi
nority report of the Committee on Creden-
tials, it declares as follows:
Upon the assembling of the Baltimore Conven-
ton 1t was found that in some instances the orgi-
nal delegates had returned and In others two
sets of delegates made their appearance. The
delegates from Mississippi, who retired from the
Charleston Convention, were sent back to Balti-
more by ) ate Convention. Three from Texas
were merely accredited by the State Central Com
mittee, as no Convention was held between the
time of the adjournment at Charleston and the
assembling at Baltimore. These original dele.
gates then accredited to Baltimore were admitted
| to seats in the Convention while the delegations
from Louisiana, Alabama, and part f ON Arkan-
sas, all occupying positions similar to those from
| Mississippi and Texas, were excluded, and other
delegates elected by unauthorized bodies admitted.
In Alabama, soon after the adjournment of the
| Charleston Convention, the Executive Committee
called II Convention OF the party. When the Con-
vention met, the delegates to Charleston submit.
ted their action to it. They were not only en-
dorsed but accredited to Baltimore 1t will be
| observed that this Convention was called by the
regular Democratic Executive Committee, and
was addressed by the Democracy of Alabama.
Nearly every county in the State was represented.
These delegates were, therefore, to all intents and
purposes the regularly elected representatives of
the Democracy Of Alabama at Baltimore.
The fact of the case is this: Delegations
from eight States seeded at Charleston, and
fractions of delegations from three other
States. Their seats were of course declared
vacant. and the Convention adjourned to
Baltimore, in order as the resolution of ad-
journment expressly declared, to allow of the
vacancies being filled. Those delegates who
retired bad no longer any rights in the Com
vention at all. Their seats were vacant
Well, when the Baltimore Convention as
| gaD1hlaI IL W. fOunH that of bo
ing States (Florida) had sent no delegates in
place of the Seceders Consequently none
were admitted from Florida. The seats re
mained vacant. 1t was found, on the other
hand, that delegates came from Mississippi
and Texas, without contestants, and they
were therefore admitted, Notwithstanding
they were opposed to Douglas. From Ala
bama, Louisiana, Georgia and Arkansas,
there came contesting delegates. The point
to be decided was, which delegates were
regular and which were not. The credcn-
tials Of one set of delegates from Alabama
were examined, and it was found that they
were accredited to a Convention at Rich
mond, and not to the National Convention,
a little postscriptum authority being added
that they might, for certain purpose, go to
Baltimore. Another set of delegates appear
ed, fully accredited to the Baltimore, (or reg
ular National Convention) OF course these
latter were the regular delegates and were
admitted. Certainly no delegation could
have a rowing commission to go to Richmond,
Baltimore. Chicago and every where else in
Discriminatory If they were not positively
accredited to the National Convention, and
nowhere else, they had no right to seats in
that body. The original delegates from Ala
bama, after formally seeding from the
Charleston Convention and disavowing its
authority, and having their seats declared
vacant, could not come back to resume those
seats without having been re~1ccted to fill
that position. They were not thus reelected.
The Express says they were accredited to
Baltimore. 1t is misstatement. They were
accredited to Richmond, and given permis-
sion to go to Baltimore also, if they felt like
it, but with the distinct understanding that
they were not to be bound by anything that
was done in the National Convention, unless
it suited them. A beautiful set of req,lar
delegates they were! Finding that the act
ing Executive Committee refused to call a
Convention which should accredit delegates
to the regular National Convention, in
place of the seceders, the Democracy at
large of the State of Alabama assumed the
responsibility and sent delegates to fill the
vacancies
One delegation from Louisiana was ac-
credited to Richmond and was of course re-
jected. The other was accredited to Balti-
more and received. The Express complains
that this was very unjust. In the name OF
God, what would that sheet have? Does il
suppose that delegates are to be admitted
who do not recognize the authority of the
Convention into which they Gomez Coming
accredited to another Convention entirely
and resolved to leave the regular Convention
at any time that they like, are such delegate.
to be considered legitimate ? No, sir. These
delegates were spurious, bastard and de-
served to have the doors closed upon them.
AS to the other States, whose delegations
seeded at Charleston, and whose second del.
egates contested each others seats, fair
compromise was offered, the case being one
of difficulty, on account of the secession, and
this compromise, which admitted Douglas
] a ~ anti Ils,,rs 81, I