The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-07-11
and vouM proceed to read them, which be did

and would proceed to read them, which be did
Is follows:
/ MINORITY REPoBT.
| 10 tie President Of tie Democratic NGt'0'a0'
Convention:
Srs:-We, the Undersigned members Of
the Committee on Credentials, feel constrained
to dissent from many Of the views and large
portion Of the action Of the majority OF the
Committee in respect to the rights Of delegates
to seats referred to them by the Convention
and to respectfully recommend the adoption
Of the following resolutions
!. Resolved, That B. F. Hallett Is entitled
to seat in this convention, as delegate from
the 5th Congressional District Of the State OF
| Massachusetts.
2. That johnson B. Gardy is entitled to
seat in this convention as delegate from the
9Th Congressional District ofthe State Of Mis-
souri,
8. That James A. Bayard, and William 6.
Whitley, are entitled to seats in this conven-
ton as delegates from the State Of Delaware.
4. That the delegation headed by r. w.
johnson are entitled to SEATS in this conven-
ton as delegates from the State of Arkansas.
5. That the delegation of which George
W. Bryan is chairman are entitled to seats In
this convention from the State of Texas.
6. That the delegation of which John Tar
Teton is chairman are entitled to seats in this
convention as delegates from the State Of
Louisiana.
Z. That the delegation of which L. P.
Walker is chairman are entitled to seats in
this convention as delegates from the State of
Alabama
8. That the delegation of which Henry L.
Benning is chairman, are entitled to seats in
this convention as delegates from the State Of
Georgia
g. That the delegation from the State of
| Florida accredited to the Charleston Conven-
ton are invited to take seats in this conven-
vention and cast the vote Of the State Of Flor
ida.
The principles involved in these resolutions
and the facts on which they rest are Of such
gravity and moment, that we deem it due to
the convention and to ourselves to set them
forth with care and particularly. We differ
radically from the majority of the committee
both in much o. the action we recommended
to the convention and the principles which
should control such action. Il is question
not simply of the integrity, but the existence
of the Democratic party in several States Of
this Union. 1t is a question whether the
Democratic party in said States shall be os-
tracised and branded as unworthy of affilia-
ton with the national organization.
| 1t is q question whether persons irregularly
called, or who Withdrawing from the regular
| convention, shall have the sanction of the Ma
tional Convention, to raise the flag of rebellion
against their respective State organizations
It is a question, whether the convention itself
shall repudiate its own deliberate action at
Charleston. We do not magnify the import
ance Of these questions when we assert that
upon their proper solution depends the fact as
| to whether there shall be National Demo-
cratic party or not. The task will not be diff
ficult to show that the action recommended by
the majority Of the Committee is grossly in
consistent and should be reprobated and con-
demned by this convention. But TO the task,
without further preamble.
Reserving to the closing portion Of this re-
port the cases of contested seats in the Mas
sachusetts and Missouri delegations, we come
at once to the cases of the delegates who
withdrew from the Charleston Convention
This Convention, on the eve Of its adjourn
ment at Charleston, and in the great cause Of
the restoration of harmony to our distracted
party, respectfully recommended to the De-
mocratic party Of the several States to make
provision for supplying all vacancies in their
respective delegations to this Convention when
|
tention to the wording of the resolution
Certain delegations had withdrawn. They
had placed on the Convention the reasons Of
their withdrawal.
| They still, however, were the representa-
tives of the Democratic party of their several
| States. Their withdrawal was not resigna-
/ ton. 1t was not so considered by the Con-
vention. The vacancies referred to had refer
ence to the contingency of vacancies at time of
re-assenab1ing, and the resolution proposed to
provide fo- supplying them. The Convention
did not presume to touch the question as to
whether the withdrawal Of the delegates con-
| stituted q resignation, nor had it any right TO
interfere in the matter. A resignation must
be made to the appointing power, and to be
complete and final must be accepted by the
appointing power. 1t was well known on the
adjournment of the Convention at Charleston
that the withdrawing delegates desired the
instruction of their several constituencies be-
fore deciding on their future course.
Such was the spirit and purpose of their
deliberations at Charleston. They consulted
| their respective constituencies. In every case
except the case of South Carolina their con-
stituencies directed and authorized them-the
vacancies being filled or contemplated in the
resolution of the Convention-to repair to
Baltimore, and there in earnest efforts with
their brethren of the Convention, to endeavor
once more to unite their party and promote
harmony and peace in the great cause Of their
country. The resolution of the Convention
did not PREJUDICE the question. since SO siren
uously raised that their withdrawal was q re-
signation, but left the whole question to the
said delegates, and their respective constituent
ces to the end, t at every State of this Union
might be represented in Baltimore.
The committee has passed resolutions, de-
claring by q vote of 16 to 8, that the delega-
ton from Louisiana, headed by Pierre Soule
by vote of IA to II, that the delegation from |
Alabama headed by Parsons, and by vote OF |
Is to 10, that half of each delegation claiming |
seats from Georgia, are entitled to seats in the |
Convention. The resolutions recommended |
by the undersigned to the Convention, declare |
the right of the delegations elected to Charles |
ton, with vacancies supplied, as contemplated |
in the resolution Of the Convention to which |
reference has been made, and accredited to |
Baltimore, to said seats. The committee /
which thus recommend the irregular dele
gates from these three States, have rejected
the irregular delegates from Delaware, and ad-
mitted the Charleston delegates.
1t has admitted irregular delegates from
Arkansas, and rejected portion of the Charles
ton delegates, as modified, by the filling Of va
cancies. 1t has admitted the (Charleston)
delegates from Mississippi by vote of 90 to
2, and the (Charleston) delegates from Texas
by q vote of 10 to 6. The fact that deIega-
tons are not contested does not establish the
right to seats in the Convention There may
be irregular delegates without contest, and
there may be q contest between two sets Of
irregular delegates. The right of persons to
seats as delegates is to be determined by the
fact as to whether they were appointed by the
constituency which they claim to represent
and appointed according to the usages of said
constituency. Wanting these essential pre-
requisites they are not entitled to seats, even
if there be no contestants; and having these
their right to seats is not impaired or affected
by contestants.
The committee in deciding by vote of %
to 2, that the Charleston delegates from Mis-
sissippi are entitled to seats in the Baltimore
Convention have decided rightly, Just because
they were duly accredited to Charleston. have
never since resigned, and have received in
structions from the State of Mississippi.
through Convention called of the Democrat
ic Executive Committee Of the State, to re-
turn to Baltimore.
The Charleston delegates, both from Ala II
bama and Georgia, stand in precisely the
same position. They were Sis6 duly accredi-
ted to Charleston They withdrew and never
resigned They returned to their respective !
Constituencies The Executive Committees !
in these States, as in the case of Mississippi, :
called convention Of the party. The con- :
ventions met The delegates, as in the case i
Of Mississippi, submitted their action to the /
and these conventions approved 4
their course, continued their powers and ac- n
credited them to Baltimore. Their rights 4
stand on precisely the same basis, and are sus- Il
tained by the same authority as in MISSISSIPPI
pi. The contestants were appointed by no Y
body authorized to meet according to the usa- :
ses Of the party in these States and are not .
sntitled to any consideration whatever. II
In the cause of Alabama, the convention as
,embled on the call of the Democratic Ex-