New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-11
THE UNION CONVENTION.
JOHN BELL NOMINATED.
Special Dispatch to The n Y. Tribune.
BALTIMORE. Thursday. NAV


preston that a strong ticket had been nominated.
The New-England delegates, as well as those
from the South, are particularly happy over the
nomination Of Messrs Bell and Everett. Exten-
sive promises are made that, with two Democrats
in the field the Union men will sweep the South.
Geo. Sanders who is in town, says Mr. Douglas
will run any way. The ratification meeting on
Monument Square is large, and the Convention is
closing up satisfactorily to pretty much everybody
except 10 the aforesaid machine smasher.
To the Associated Pres.
BALTIMORE, Thursday, May 10, 1860.
The Convention met at 10 o'clock.
The Chair presented a letter from Judge Chambers
Of Maryland expressing regret at not being able to at
tend and hoping that wise and patriotic result would
be attained.
Also a Geographic dispatch from Washington, from
W. c. Hays Wouck, Of New-York urging the Constitu
ton and Washingon's Farewell Address az a sufficient
platform.
On calling the roll delegates appeared from Florida
and Rhode Island which were not represented yester
day..
Jos r. Ingersoll reported from the Committee on
Business the result of their deliberations, which lie
said was characterized by great unanimy and patriot
ism. The report says that whereas experience has
demonstrated that all platforms adopted by political
parties have the effect to mislead and to cause political
divisions, by encouraging geographical and sectional
partes therefore,
Reocd, That both patriotism and duty require that they
should recognize no policy or principles but those resting on the
Of the States and the enforcement Of the laws Eea applause
ana A ao ina' Is .e ~ %
tain protect and defend these principles thus sfordns security
at home sd abroad and secure the blessings OF liberty to them
selves and posteriy.
Adopted by reclamation.
The Committee reported another resolution that each
State should determine for itself the mode of voting
whether by unit otherwise. This excited consider
able dlseussiOn-the minores of delegations contend
ing that its adoption would place them at the mercy of
tie maiorties, and thus ste the expression of their
individual preferences.
Mr.. Warner of Massachusetts, said he came here to
express the sentiments of his constituents The reso
solution reported from the Committee was one of the bold
party tricks TO place the mnorities under the control
of the maoriiies. If his State bad instructed him for
particular man he would obey the instructions, but
none such had been given and be desired that the dele
gates should vote in their individual capacity.
Mr.. Perree of Maryland denied that the Commit
tee had any intention of perpetuating party tricks 1t
was mere question of expediency. He thought there
was 10 intention to smother the voice of the minority.
In his own delegation, it had been determined that
everyone should he allowed to indicate its preference
Mr.. Partridge of Mississippi sustained the report OF
the Committee. The question was whether the deega
ton could determine how the voting should be DONE
or WHITTIER the Convention should do ii. lie thought
ii beet 10 leave it to the delegations
Mr.. sorehead of n. &. wanted each district to
have hs vote whether for Mr.. Houston or Mr.. some
body tlse.
Avoce, " Bell" [Applause.l
Nj. Morehead-I should ray Graham. Applause.l
Mr.. Norehead continued advocating the voting by dis
ircts and opposing any attempt to silence the voice of
mnoiiiies
Mr. Stevens of New-York offered an amendment that
each delegate be entitled TO one VOTE
Nj johnson of Pennsylvania offered an amendment
that each district be entitled TO one vote.
Mr. Comegys of Delaware said his State had but
ore Congressional district, and the adoption OF that
resolution would deprive that State Of two votes.
Mr. Hill Of Georgia advocated the resolution Of the
Committee.
Mr.. Brooks of New.York denied that he had any in
tenton she the voice of mnOrities. lie offered the
previous question 10 the Resolution Committee that
each State have votes for the State at large, and
each district be entitled to one vote.
Mr. Watson offered provso that no delegate be de.
priyed of his individual vote without his consent.
Mr. Brooks accepted this amendment, and withdrew
his proviso.
John A. Rockwell Of Connecticut opposed allowing
States not fully represented to cast the entire vote OF
the State. They should only vote for districts that
Mr.. Murphy of New-York offered substitute that
each State be entitled to as many votes AS she had
Senators and Representatives in Congress, and that
each delegate be entitled to one VOTE
Mr. Coggin Of Virginia offered resolution that the
chairman of each delegation cast the vote of the State
in accordance with the instructions given by the dele
gates from the different districts. Where the State was
not fully represented, majority OF the delegation to
determine how the vote unepresented by districts shall
be cast and where delegates representing one dis
ric are divided in opinion, each be entitled to half
vote.
After a short discussion Mr.. Goggins amendment
was adopted and the resolution as amended passed.
Mr.. Smith of Missouri moved to proceed to vote
for President and that the lowest candidate be dropped
after every third ballot Laid on the table.
Mr.. Buel Of New-York, moved to proceed to bal
lot for President and continue TO vote till some one re-
ceiye majority. Carried.
A resolution was carried for the appointment Of
tellers and the Chair appointed Messrs. Brooks OF
New.York IIackett of Tennessee, Watson OF Msss-
sippi and Rockwell of Connecticut.
1he delegation from Maryland retired for consulta-
ton.
Mr.. Barnett Of Minnesota asked 10 be excused from
voting, as the only delegate from that State, and he
only proxy.
Houston. McLean........2 Cnttenden.
Ben.............6s! Grsham........2 Goggn'..'''.