The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-08-03
winch he previously submitted. The Sec
ono report Of the majority consisted of these

"A0u ne previously submitted. The Sec
ond report Of the majority consisted of these
three resolutions
FIRST. That the government of a Territory
organized by an act of Congress is provisional
aa9 temporary and, during its existence, all
right to settle with their pronertv in the Teri.
tory without their rights, either Of nerson or
property, being destroyed or Unmarried nv
Congressional or Territorial legislation
Second. That it is the duty Of the federal
government gS IN al ,ts departments, to protect
perty in the Territories, and wherever else it's
constitutional authority extends. -''
Third That when the settlers in Territory
having an adequate population, form State
constitution, the right OF sovereignty com.
mences; and being contaminated by admis.
sion into the Union, they stand on an equal
footing with the people of other States and
the State thus organized ought to be admitted
into the Federal Union, whether its constitu.
ton prohibits or recognizes the institution of
slavery.
Nothing could be more vague and unsat.
isfactOry than these resolutions they deal
in /" truisms of the tamest significance, or,
rather, as the controversy then stood, of no
significance at all. 1t would have been a
sufficient reason for their rejection (if no
other resolutions had ever been presented)
that these magni6ed thousand fold the
alleged faults of the Cincinnati platform.
The second report from the minority of
the committee, presented by Mr.. Samuels,
of Iowa, consisted of the Cincinnati plat
form with this addition
RESOLVED, That the Democratic party will
abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States on these questions of cOnsti-
tutiOnal law.
No farther amendments or resolutions
being admissible, by parliamentary rule, the
convention proceeded to vote first reject
ing the report of Mr.. Butler, and then SUBJ
shutting the report of Mr.. Samuels for that
of the majority. The question recurring
upon the adoption of Mr.. Samuels' resolu-
tion, delegate from North Carolina (Mr
Brown obtained the leave, by unanimous
consent, to address the Convention, and
thereupon expostulated against the resou,
ton las it then stood in very earnest terms.
1t was Immediately rejected, by vote of
238 to 81; the states of Alabama, Missis-
sippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and
Florida declining to vote on either side.
With view to the amendment of that re-
solution, so as to remove the objection thus
suggested, motion for reconsideration was
entered. Such amendment could only be
accomplished by rejecting the resolution
and then reconsideriDg that vote; the pre-
vious 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 it, and, consequently,
hnfn Of olo 4;
resolution could be proposed, the Alabama
delegation withdrew from the convention
followed by ten of the delegates from Louis
lana, thus leaving that state without vote !;
the entire delegations from Mississippi,
Texas, and Florida, and the larger part of
the delegations from South Carolina, Geor>
gia, and Arkansas. These delegations with
drew in the most formal manner; not con-
tenting themselves with speeches on the sub
Ject, but delivering written protests to be
entered at large upon the journal of the
convention.
EXCUSES FOR THE SECESSION AT CHARLESTON.
Various excuses have been assigned for
this extraordinary conduct, but none of
them, in our judgment, will bear examina-
ton. It has been said, for instance, that the
convention adopted an unfair rule of voting,
or one which enabled minority of delegates
to control the majority. Here is the rule
in so many words:
"That in any state which has not provided
or directed, by its state convention, how its
vote may be given. the convention will recog-
nize the right of each delegate to cast his in
dividual vote"
This rule was adopted on Tuesday, April
Oath, by vote of 1874 against 2O7 dele
gates; which sufficiently demonstrates its
fairness, if any demonstration were requisite.
1t acknowledges the right of every state to
bind her delegates, but secures to each dele
gate bis own vote, as against any cOmbna-
ton of bis colleagues, where the state has
not chosen thus to subordinate him. The
rule was applied at Charleston in the deci-
sion of all questions, and no complaint was
then made Of it lin their protests or their
speeches) by the delegations which withdrew.
The first excitement, so far as we can ascer-
tain, was in the address published by eigh-
teen members of Congress, after the conven-
ton had adjourned from Charleston to Bal.
timore. The rule operated as hardly upon
the one side as upon the other; witness the
fact that delegates from Alabama and Lou.
isiana were compelled to withdraw from the
convention, by the act of their colleagues,
against their own will, and that ten dele
gates from Georgia who remained in the
convention were not allowed to vote (under
General Cushing's decision) because ma
jority of the delegation had Withdrawn.
Ofwhat possible Importance can the as
sertion be that a different result, either in
regard to the platform or the candidates,
would have attended rule authorizing each
delegate to control bis own vote, without
reference to the instructions of his State?
In New York, Alabama, Indiana, and Lou
isiana, for example, the convention which
instructed the delegates was the convention
which appointed them; and but that all
these delegates were understood to accept
their appointments severally, with an obilga-
ton to obey the instructions, it is very GER
tain the convention would, in each case,
have made other appointments. Ard, after
all, how much reliance can be placed in as
sertions or calculations as to what any DEL
egate would have done, at Charleston, in
different circumstances. All such assertions
or calculations are based on rumors, sur
misses, information of second hand, or assur-
ances privately signifed. We could, by the
same style of argument, refute the whole of
them; but we choose to deal with the SUBJ