The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-06-13
(ArOm tie Washington Constitution
The Resolution of Adjournment of the
Charleston Convention.

We publish with great pleasure the follow
ins communication addressed to us by Sena-
tor MASON Of Virginia, correcting a very i'm.
portant and, We fear, widespread mistake
relative to the terms and tenor of the resolu-
ton proposed by Mr.. RUSSELL, delegate from
Virginia, on which the Charleston Convention
adjourned to meet in Baltimore on the 18th
prox.
The difference between the resolutions as
enormously reported and as really proposed
by Mr.. RUSSELL, will DC seen at glance, and
we sincerely thank S 'nator Mason for having
drawn our attention to it, and affording Us the
best means Of correcting the mistake;
10 the E{ltors Of the Constitution =:
GESTLEMGS In the pamphlet copy Of the
proceedings OF the National Democratic Con-
vention at Charleston. printed and published
in this city, the resolution of adjournment
offered by Mr.. RUSSELL of Virginia, is given i'll
the following words
Resolved, That when this Convention adj
journs to-day it adjourn to meet it Baltimore
on the 18th day OF June, in order to afford
the States that are not now represented an
opportunity to fill up their delegations
This pamphlet Gas have been inform) was
compiled from the proceedings published from
day to day in the newspapers printed in Char
lesion and, from some cause-probably from
inadvertance or mistake-the resolution was
printed incorrectly in the newspaper from
which it was thus taken.
The resolution of adjournment offered by
Mr.. Russell, and adopted by the Convention,
was in the following words
"Resolved, That when this Convention adj
journ it adjourn to rcassemble at Baltimore
a4 MI
that it is respectfully recommended to the
provision for supplying all vacancies in their
respective delegations to this Convention when
it shall reassemble."
The above is copy taken by me from the
resolution in Mr.. Russells possession, which
he brought with him from Charleston.
The marked difference between the two
will strike the reader at once. As printed in
the pamphlet, it is addressed only to States
that are now represented" mputing that
there were States in the judgment of the Con-
vention, not then represented in the Conven-
ton; thus seeming to imply that the seats of
the delegations of those States who had with
drawn were then vacant
In the resolutions really presented and adj
dopted a recommendation is addressed "to the
make provision for supplying all vacancies in
their respective delegations WHEN it shall re-
assemble
In looking into this matter, which it is i'm
portant to set right, it was brought to my
notice that the resolution of adjournment was
correctly printed in the Charleston Courier"
at the time, and in the following words
Resolved, That when this Convention ad-
journs to-day it adjourn to reassemble at
Baltimore, Nd on Monday, the 18th day of
June, and that it be respectfully recommended
to the democratic party of the several States
to make provision for supplying all vacancies
in their respective delegations to this Conven-
ton when it shall reassemble."
The difference between the above and the
resolution derived from Mr. Russell, it will be
seen, in merely verbal and unimportant.
Very respectfully, yours,
j. NJ. MASON