The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-07-19


her and s the s On % Sush % &c Admitted
cognzes The institution Of slavery.
Nothing could be vague and unsatisfactory than
these resolutions they deal IN "tuisms" OF the tamest
significance rather the controversy then Stood of
no significance at all II would have been sufficient
reason for their rejection III other resolutions had ever
been presened that these magnihed thousand fold the
alleged faults Of the Cincinnati platform.
The second report from the minority Of the committee
presented by Mr. Samuel Of Iowa, consisted OF the Gin
cinnati platform with this addition
Inamuch differences Of opinion exist IN Tie democratic
party the and extent Of the powers Of Territorial
asr ss Y Se
'iEsssS wsa s s It party viii .sa. BY tn.
sion q the Supreme Court Of the United Suites on 'hsse ques
No further amendments or resolutions being admiss
IDLE by parliamentary rule the Convention proceeded 70
vote first rejecting the report OF M Butler and then
substituting the report Of Mr. Samuel for that Of the
jority The question recurring upon the adoption Of Mr.
samues resolution, delegate from North Carolina (hr
Brown obtained the leave by unanimous consent 70 ad
the resolution las then stood in very earnest terms
was Immediately rejected BY vote Of 2ss 70 81 the
States Of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
Georgia. and Florida declining to vote on either side
With view the amendment Of that resolution as to
remove the objection thus suggested motion for recon
sideration entered Such amendment could only be
accomplished by rejecting the resolution and then recon
siderng that vote the previous question having been
seconded and sustained by the Convention before the
delegate from North Carolina had spoken.
Pending this motion for reconsideration, before
any vote upon and Ss0re oo any
be proposed the Alabama delegation withdrew
from the Convention, followed by ten Of tho dele
gates from louisiana thus leaving that State without
vote the entire delegations from Mississippi Texas and
Florida and the larger part Of the delegations from South
CaroDa Georgia. and Arkansas These del legations With
drew Ia the most formal manner; not contentng them
with speeches the subject but deliver ing writ
ten protests TO be entered at large upon the Journal Of the
EXCUSES FOR THE SECESSION AT CHARLESTON.
Various have been assigned for this extraord.
nnry conduct but none tf them, in our Judgment, Will
the Convention adopted unfair rule Of voting,
which enabled minority Of the delegates 70 control the
majority. Here Is the rule In 80 many words
That In any State witch provie ed directed by s
will recognize right Of each delegate his individual
This rule was adopted on Tuesday April a. by vote
Of 1874 against POI delegates which sufficiently demon
strates its fairness, any demonstration were requisite
1t Acknowledges the right Of every state to bind her dele
gates but each delegate his VOTE against
any combination Of his colleagues where the State has
not chosen thus subordinate him The rule was ap
Piled at Charleston in the decision OF all questions and
complaint then made Of il Tin their protests or
their speeches)by the delegations which withdrew. The
first complaint far ascertain was In the ad
dress published by eighteen members OF Congress- after
the Convention had adjourned from Charleston TO Ba
The rule operated hardly upon the one side as
upon the other witness the fact that delegates from Ala
bama and Louisiana were compelled TO withdraw from
the Convention by the act Of their colleagues against
their own WILL and that ten delegates from Georgia who
(undcr General Cushngs decison) because majority Of
the delegation had Withdrawn.
OF what possible Importance can the assertion be that
neret resuit either in reosrd m The nlatfnrm mr. the
candidates would have attended rule authorizing each
delegate 70 oorro ms own vS.e without 20 tne
ga 1"n;s;ana Ca nvsr,,i. ~ nnnron,;o, h,rh -
structed tie delegates the convention which appointed
them and but that ali these delegates were 10
accept their appointments severaly with obligation
10 obey the instructions it Is very certain the Convention
after ali how much reliance Fan he placed in Assertions or
as 10 what anv delegate would nave done at
sertions or are based On minors surmses
In AT second hand or assurances privately sig
nifed.
we co,ld Inv The same STYLE of aro,nent refute the
whole az them hut we choose 10 deal with the subject as
men and not TO amuse ourselves with suppcsions or
possbiIties The method OF voting was an affair 70 be
determined By the Con and IL was Determined at
Charleston AZ we have shown by 4 majority OF almost
Another COMPLAINT Ia that the repoyt OF the majority OF
the committee on resolutions was not adopted by the
ventopas being the voice OF maoritv of The States
several answers suggest themselves at once.
J. such was mot the method OF voting adopted by the
convention and had bee the method In any prcyi
II The rule had been that majority of the COMMITTEES
should prescribe the PLATFORM and not majority OF the
Convention IL is evident from their votes (aerward
ryenl that OF the states would have chos en- other
REPRESENTATIVES upon the committee
3 The fist majority repore as we have shown was
not .cccpahc 10 he dclegatons which subseoucntv re-
tired Every one OF them voted for its recommitment
The second report of the con mitiee never did,
whole command the assent OF majority the
would move Al the proper time 70 strike out this ali i'm
porfapt resolut ion =
Tha, 4, "a the au,v q, ,bs federal government, An all In
a,.n. ,n uhen ,cressarx The rights Of persons
and property IN the Territories and wherever else lis cons
isnonai authority extends
II required the committeeman from Missouri TO const
tue the majority seventeen Of which we nave hearo 20
much. Without farther argument thereore, TINS pre'eu
isappears.
has been said, hnaliy, that the SAes winch Avoreo
the second majority plat were democratic saics and
that All the others were nopeess or, s.,