Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1860-06-20

|
here to dispute the claims of the delegates
from Arkansas?
| A member said Arkansas was contested.
Mr.. Salisbury raised the point of order
that it was not competent to apply any tests
to the delegates of the seeding States which
are not applied to the whole body.
The President ruled that the point of order
could not be raised at this time.
Mr.. Ewing, resuming, said, if there was u
contest from Arkansas, why keep out the
delegates from Mississippi, Texas, and Flori-
da? Why did they not want to concliate-
to harmonic all they can? The gentleman
from Pennsylvania Mr.. Montgomery was
wrong in the views he had taken. The
speaker was opposed to secession. These
gentlemen were induced to believe that there
would be concession here, and why should
there not be? They should not ask any gen
tleman to do what he is not in honor bound
to do.
The President had paper read, presented
to him, which stated that the delegations
from Arkansas had compromised, and were
willing to enter the convention as one dele
CATION. 1t was signed by all the members
Of the two delegations.
| i.
was another paper sent by Gen. Rusk, OF
Arkansas to the president Of the convention.
The Presidents replied that he had not re-
ccived it.
Mr.. Loring of Mass, said he was detained
from Charleston by ailiction in his family.
When he was elected a delegate, lie thought
he was sent TO national convention. lie
saw a portion of his party driven from that
convention And, now had this convention
any power to accept the resignation of those
delegates who went out at Charleston
When he saw those delegates here standing
at the door again, he felt it was duty to
open their arms and take them in. Those
delegates need no re-accreditng, and he beg
ged this convention to cordially give them
their seats. What was the nomination worth
without those States?
Mr.. Richard Merrick, Of H., said that
those delegates who had retired at Charles
ton had blOttcd their names forever from this
convention. lie urged that all the delega-
tons from the seeding States should 90 to
the committee, whether they were contested
or not, and that committee should report
whether they are entitled to seats here. II
they must have a war between the Union and
disunion democracy, why lett come.
Mr.. Samuels, Of Iowa, inquired whether
there was any paper here accrediting dele
gates from Florida? He understood that they
did not ask for admission.
The President replied that there had been
handed to him published newspaper re-
port Of the proceedings Of the Florida con-
yenton.
a member remarked that that was the old
report.
Mr.. King, of Missouri, was opposed to re-
cciving these gentlemen here with roaming
commissions, to come here and elsewhere
lie did not think these gentlemen ought to
| have seats here again, even after ther claims
were investigated. Mississippi had re-ac-
credited her delegates and their credentials
should be sent 10 the committee, and If all
right, he would vote to let them in The
delegates who had gone to Richmond, and
had come here asking for admission, had only
come here for mischief, and he would never
vote to let them come in here. Florida was
not accredited to come here, and yet gentle
men were willing to let them in. South
Carolina was the onl Y State among the sece-
ders which had preserved its dignity. |!
has been charged on the streets that this was
IL bogus convcntion--that they were tunctls
otlicio. They had taken high legal authority
at Washington, it was stated -the Attorney
general, he supposc,l-and had decided that
this was a bogus convention.
Mr.. West, Of Conn, contended that the
Democracy Of Connecticut were loyal to the
Union. They came here in good faith and
if they were voted down, would 90 home and
hurrah for the candidates Of the Convention
1t has been charged that the Southern sere-
ders were driven from this Convention, and
ne asked how driven? Was the ma iority to
bow down to the minority, and give them
such platform as they did not ask four
years ago? The North asked nothing but
what was right, and they would submit to
nothing that was wrong.
Col. Hunter, of Missouri, had sat in this
convention for eleven days, and had kept
silence but the extraordinary speech Of his
colleague (AIr King forced him to speak.
That gentleman had said he would not vote
to let these Southern delegates in. How did
he expect to elect 4 candidate? And how
long was it since he had given his last Demo
cratic vote? lie had violated his instruc-
tons When the speaker heard the gentle
man from Massachusetts, Mr. Long, he fclt
glad for without concession they never could
succeed. There We're five hundred as good
men in the country as Mr.. Douglas, and if
Mr.. Douglas was dead, they would not have
| had this trouble
Mr.. Douglas is doing here just what Mr..
Benton did in Missouri. lie was an anti
| Douglas man, and came here as such, but
they passed resolutions in their State con-
yention to abide by the result, and he'would
do So But pass resolutions Of instructions
on him here, and he would resign and 20
home. They were here fighting among
themselves like cats and dogs, when they
had an enemy fighting right up in front Of
them. lie believed that when the Democra-
tic party was dismembered, there would be
disunion among the States, therefore he
urged Cancellation and harmony.
Mr.. Avery, Of \. c., said speeches made
here tc-lay by the gentlemen from Pennsyl-
vania and Illinois were not the speeches to
elect their candidates lie came here with
his delegation to stand by the candidate Of
the convention composed of all the sovereign
States But he saw southern democratic
| States excluded from the convention. The
came here representing the regular organ
lied democracy of their States aud were
entitled to admission I'he speaker opposed
| any test as condition OF admission to the
| convention.
Mr.. Atkins Of Tennessee, said the demo-
! | 1 l