The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-06-23

is based upon the evidence that before the commit
tee in every towit in Alabam Georgia Mssssip
nj louisiana Arkansas and Texas the parties admitted
seats by the majority report had been severay elect
ed appointed or reaccredited in form, the
Adjournment at Charleston OF this fact (if the evi-
reiahle successful contradiction is challenged
The minority gentlemen again stultify themselves for
they that collections took place in three States but
they strangely forgot to state the fact Established before
the committee) that Messrs Bayard and Whitley were
eapponted according to the rules of the Democracy OF
New Castle county Delaware, and the Texas delegation
directed by the Executive Committee of that State
to repair to Baltimore 1t in evidence before the
committee that this customary mode in those States
of making nominations and appointing delegates, &c.
The committee considered it tanamount to reappnnt
ment But what OF Mlsssslpp is u NOT tne poaSt OF
of the Mississippi delegation, that they have been
reapponted since their secession without opposlonT III
there has not been election, how it that del
egaes here from Mississippi who not at Charles
ton? The credentials Of this delegation show upon their
face that they appointed by the Convention that sat
the 30h and S1st of May 1860 The temerity of the
gentlemen is without parallel No new election in Mis-
sissippi?
The following some of the reasons which influenced
the decision of the majority of the committee in respect
to the claimants from Alabama of which L. F. Walker is
chairman. He and his associates claim to have been ap
pointed by Convention that sat the 4th of June inst
Several of these not seceders at Charleston Mark
this fact But where were these delegates appointed
the 4th Of June to goto what Convention They were
instructed by the Convention that appointed them to
pair Richmond and operare with the delegates of
that Convention, &c.
This written upon the face OF the credentials which
were before your committee. 1t is true, little lower
Convention
These gentlemen were considered by your committee,
for this and other delegates to the Richmond
Convention and not to this. rowing commission .
Suppose their instructions had included Conventions of
Utahwould this Convention allow them seats after they
had boxed the compass under such rowing commission
Your committee said No, and every true Democrat
throughout the land will respond No!
ARKANSAS.
In the Arkansas case, the applicants for seats show
regularity of record The seceders from Charleston hay
mittee felt it their duty either to recommend to the Con
venon the exclusion of both sets of apple the
of irregularty to admit both the two District
Conventions that alleged to have sustained the action
of the seceders and to have accredited them to Baltimore
had by their admission, power to act in the prem
ses and therefore their action does not entle the app
cants to seats in the Convention. The opposing claim
ants appointed by Convention called upon notice,
in the usual way by individuals not possessing an official
character and they therefore, technically speaking
entitled than the others to but the Com
mi ttee, dsregardng techncaes and not desiring to
leave the Democracy of Arkansas unreprssented this
floor decided to recommend that all the claimants be ad
mited to in the Convention the condi-
tions specified in their report
LOUISIANA.
In the Louisiana it is clearly demonstrated like
wise that according to strict usage neither of the deega
ons entitled to be received by this Convention
The eceders from Charleston did present themselves
before new convention fresh from the people, but the
old Convention which had adjourned die land there
fore had by its and the the party termna
action OF the seceders That socaled Convention had
therefore right than any like number Of other
dvidual Democrats to the representatives
of the Democracy OF Louisiana Their proceedings in any
of no force validity and their action in
accrediting the seeding delegation to Baltimore a
gross usurpatlon power on their part On the other
hand the delegation whose admission has been recon-
mended by the committee appointed by convention
assembled at Donaldsonvle composed of Delegates from
twenty parishes Including the city of New Orleans
out Of thirty mine parishes in the State.
it is true that the call for the Democracy of the State
send delegates to the Convention made ndi ividua
Democrats and by two distinct Democratic clubs but in
asmuch the State Executive Committee refused call
new Convention, and thus appeal to the Democracy to
endorse condemn the action of their delegates at
Charleston who withdrew from the Convention, there
other to bepursueA than for known and diSn
guished members of the party issue the call
the Democracy sustain it by the appointment of dele
gates in accordance with such call An emergency had
arisen and inasmuch as the Executive Committee had
refused to act it seemed to the committee that there
other left to the Democracy Of Louisiana but
assemble in Convention upon the spontaneous call of in
divdual Democrats.
GEORGIA
The admission of both of the delegations presenting
themselves from Georgia, recommended because the
committee believed that each Of those delegations repre-
sent the opinions and sentiments part of the Democ
racy of the State The withdrawal from the Convention
OF part OF its members was occasoned as the evidence
before the committee demonstrated, by difference of
construction between them and their associates upon
tain points in the Democratic platform Two Conven tons
each claiming he the and only exponens
Democratic sentiment Of the State held and each
appointed delegation to this Convention The repuari
ty of both of these Conventions involved doubt
At all events, does not regular than the
other After full investigation of the facts in this
tance that the harmony of the party in Georgia re-
quired that both delegations should he admitted upon
the floor Of the Convention, with equal privileges
so recommended to the Convention in their report
1t undenahe that the appointing power both
composed Of delegates fresh from the ranks of
the Democracy and in the opinion of the Committee the
Irregularities alleged in either sufficient
justify the exclusion of either of the delegations The
committee consisted of twenty members and the ma
jorty report received the sanction of sixteen
greater portion of it and the whole is approved by fifteen
The minority report approved altogether by nine and
hlt hN
ton presented by the minority report shall the
ments and opinions Of nine gentlemen outweigh and
respe stability, touching the same matter?
(Cries of Question "questionD
Mr.. BROWN, Of North Carona.-It is with very great
reluctance Mr. President that venture to nterpose
word upon this occasion. Sir, it would give inf
ntely pleasure to pour oil upon the agitated
Mr. GoRMAN, of Minnesota i rise to point OF order
Mr. BEOwN.-l rose to make personal EXP lanaton.
Mr. GoRMAN My point of order is anticipated by my
honorable friend from North Carolina The necessity of
the demands that should call the gentleman to or
der there being dehatabe question before the Conven
ton.
The PREsl DENT-Upon the point of order made by the
gentleman from Minnesota is the duty of the Chair to
rule that debate is in order
Mr. STEVENS, of Orcgon.-I rise to Question of per
sonal explanation.
Mr.. STUART, of Michigan.-I object to it,
Mr. STEvENs-I have only sentence to say.
Mr. STUART insist upon the order of business.
Mr. STEvENs.-I appeal to my friend from Michigan to
allow me to make a single remark.
Mr. STUART.-No gentleman will go farther than in
personal matters but be obvious to this Conven
tion that we must proceed to business tApplause)
The PREsDENTThe Chair will state that the first aues
tion in order of motions is the vote on the PROPOSE
ton of the gentleman from Oregon Mr. Stevens Mr..
Stevens moves certain matter substitute for the re-
port of the committee The Chair understands that
ton to be equivalent to motion out and insert
and although the Chair feels that there may be
doubt as to what should be the construction of like
this of indeed what is the true construction of the uni
versal rule that motion to strike insert is ind
visible, without going into the question whether that
universal declaration applies that itself or what
behind the notion the Chair has reflection come to
the conclusion that this motion to strike ont and
insert is ndvisbe and therefore, unless overruled by
the Convention he will be prepared put the question to
the Convention upon the series of resolutions in block
Mr.. CocHRANE. of New York; feel constrained to
appeal from the decision of the Chair upon that point
The PREsIDENT-The Chair would remind the gentle
man from New York that he had not yet concluded
Having come to that conclusion upon, of course
reflection upon the subject subject to being
overrued the Chair had conceived that if the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Oregon should adopted
on motion to strike out and insert then they would he
dvsbe and the separate propositions contained in the
report the minority would be susceptible ofbeng voted
upon separately il the motion of substitution should
be rejected then upon the Convention being brought to
vote upon the res outions presented by the gentleman
from Missouri Mr. Kruml those propositions would be
separable.
Mr.. CocHRANE. New York; take an appeal from
the ruling of the CHAIR TO enable to make an eX-
PLANTATION, and, having made it, shall leave it to the
contemplation and judgment of the Chair, and then
withdraw the appeal 1t is undoubtedly that mo-
ton to strike out and insert in of the independent
propositions OF the majority report would be ndivisibe
but the proposition is applicable to that and nothing
more viz IT, upon the first branch Of the maorty re-
port the motion should be strike out that branch and
insert the first branch of the minority report that
would be ndivisble and that is the appca
ton Of the rule of the House, but that does reach this
question. sir whether amendment in the nature of
substitute is in itself ndvisble AS that think
dvsible, being substitute, it would he dvisble
being an amendment for the substitute is nothing
than an amendment of the nature # a substitute
withdraw my appeal Cries of Question: - question ~
The PREsIDENT-Beore putting the question the Chair
desires to remind the Convention that he informed the
Convention yesterday that he had been requested
before it communication from the gentlemen from Ar
kansas He had then opportunity Of having it read
nut he again informs the Convention that has been
read.
(Cries of "Not now"-''I obiect,)
Ohio called for the vote by States
The minority report then rejected by the followino
vote:
Yeas-Mane, 2K; New Hampshire, y; Vermont IL.
Massachusetts, S; Connecticut 24 New Jersey 4; Penn
svlvania, IL, Delaware, 2 Maryland, 5k Virginia Ia
North Carolina 9; Arkansas, n Missouri s. Tennessee
10; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, X; California L. Oregon
3-1O0H
Nays-Naine 5I; New Hampshire Ak; Vermont Az.
Massachusetts, s; Rhode Island, 4: Connecticut 3b New
York, 35; New Jersey 3; Pennsylvania, To- Maryland
IN; Virginia, 2; North Carolina, !; Arkansas II; Mis-
souri, a. Tennessee. 1; Kentucky, p Ohio 23 Indiana
IS Illinois, IL; Michigan g. Wisconsin, 5; Iowa. 4; Min
nesota, 2H-150.
Before the vote declared,
The PRESIDENT said-Whe the Secretary is adding up
the the Chair asks leave to be permitted to make
suggestion and is this-that the occasion the
declaration of this of subsequent vote
all of them being of momentous character in their party
relations naturally involving much interest and emotion
that members of the Convention should abstain from
any such extreme manifestations of applause will of
necessity almost inevitably lead to the propagation of
ose manifestations of applause to the galleries and
hs ead to inconvenience which wholly ndepend-
ent, IN the estimation of the Chair, of the question
OF noise If the Convention will itself that example
decor1m in the gravest of all possible questions