Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-06-26
Proceedings at Baltimore.

We regret our inability to give more than q
meagre outline CT the proceedings of the Demo-
cratic National Convention at Baltimore. The
detailed reports published in the daily papers
are vivid descriptions of s'confusion worse con-
founded" If the members had met together
for the express purpose of worrying one another
and preventing the transaction of bushes, they
could hardly have accomplished the object more
satisfactorily. Contests for the floor and ques-
lions of order occupied more time by far
than the regular business of the Convention
The angry feelings engendered in the Oonven-
tion led to personal collisions outside, and rough
and tumble fights took place between three sets
of members from Arkansas, Delaware and Penn
sylvania, respectiyely-the fighting men seeming
disposed to pair off by States. On Thursday,
the whole Convention was thrown into an up
roar by quarrel which arose among the Penn
sylvania delegates. Every now and then, how
ever, the intense earnestness of the proceedings
was relieved by a streak of fun and good humor.
Mr.. Butler, of Massachusetts,, rose ito question
of privilege" The tickets of admission to the
Hall, which were printed and issued to the
members, had been counterfeited, and the con-
sequence was, said Mr.. Butler, ''that we are
again overwhelmed with outsiders, here by
fraud" A member moved that the bogus tick
cts be referred to the Committee on Credentials,
wish that Mr.. Butler would give him lot of
the tickets that he might get in some of his
friends. Mr.. Butler was intensely indignant at
the forgery, but the members generally appeared
to regard it as a good joke.
The majority report of the Committee on
Credentials was favorable to the success of Judge
Douglas before the Convention. 1t recon-
mendeG the admission of the Douglas delegates
from Alabama and Louisiana, instead of the
Charleston Seceders who appeared at Baltimore
claiming their seats, Notwithstanding some OF
them had vowed they would not go there. The
between the Secsders and the Douglas men,
The Seceders from Mississippi and Texas were
to be admitted, no other delegates appearing to
contest their seats South Carolina and Florida,
which asked no favors of the Baltimore Con,
vention, were ignored. The principal minority
report, signed by Mr.. Hubbard, of Virginia, and
BY members of the Committee from Oregon,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and California,
proposed to reverse the whole order of things
recommended by the majority. 1t went for ad-
hitting the original delegates who seeded at
Charleston, ard presented an argument in favor
of their right to seas. The Douglas delegates
from Georgia, it asserted, were appointed by
nobody authorized to appoint while the Seced-
ers had been duly endorsed and accredited to
Baltimore by their constituents-ditto Alabama
ditto Louisiana. The New York delegates
were at loss how to vote upon the various re-
ports, and like their ancestors of Manhattan,
went into brown study over the matter. A
vote was postponed to give them time for con-
sultation, and they finally turned up in favor of
the majority. This turned the scale in the
Convention, and the Douglas contestants from
the Southern States, with the exception of Geor-
gia, were admitted. Large majorit:es of the
delegates from Virginia, North Carolina, Ten
ne>see and other Southern States, then announced
their intention to wthdraw-but we refer to our
synopsis for the subsequent proceedings.