The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-03-23

ca shOdA Be- put IN my absence (which, by the way, I
nsids.ed uncertain = the debate then gong 90 might
eferring my argument TO the next dsy-I might Ger.
hnly depend On the vote Of New York being declared
the s %
0o assms. a opposition the rights Of the state, 'nsr
On my arrival. At the Court did not succeed in my
sre 70 defer my argument 10 the next day; but mad
Done %, would have made difference as the vote
tne convention must have been called before reached
What occurred In my absence can only know from
port Five different statements are given one by Mr.
70 delegation In the minutes kept by hin; the
lird by the chairman OF the Massachusetts, deega-
who had the best Sppo, ,Sn o. observing
spondonce with me, and the nth in the published
urnal Of the Convention.
The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before
Pw York was called asked my colleagues what vote
Mr.. Field sthe vote was divided. Nevertheless,
ed the case 10 the Convention, and asked permission
cast The vote = before THIS was objected % BY one
wing been refused BY the Convention by direction Of
colleagues, when the State was called, answered
The other statements are subjoined, and numbered
Zion comparison of these statements it appears
That the direction given to Mr. King when the whole
legation were together regularly convened In contem-
at'co Of my absence, was 70 "decare that New York
That instead Of conanng himself to this duty he be.
immediately upon my departure, ana before the vote
demanded 70 ask anew, what vote should be given"
when the vote was demanded, instead OF voting no,
tated the case the Convention and aaed permission
cast the vote ~ before"
That Mr. Kings colleagues, though they had Just 70.
IecArs that New York voted no." YET "beTore New
rk was called and OF course before any intimation
ss.on What vote should l Be siven replied, that IN
Fields absence the vote was divided, and directed
That the Convention never sdecded that no person
Md vote who was not present." Whatever was done
done between the delegation and Mr. Tyler No order
% taken by the Convention but the contrary, the
ection on the part Of the minority Of the delegation
that the Convention bad no control or authority in
matter"
What caused this departure from the course Of proceed
prescribed by the resolution does not clearly appear
delegation did not rescind the resolution the Con-
Ation did not reverse 1t. do not understand
u my associates considered 1t nullity; GER
MY they could not have so considered 1t whom 1t
8 passed. have not sufficient evidence that they
Changed vet That the resolution o. wa NOT
ty, but an authoritative act binding upon every
Of the delegation until duly reconsidered, believed
submit therefore, that my reason for attending the
rt at its opening was not only sufficient, but impera
70, and had not yielded TO il should have incurred
Ieproach Of my clients and the censure of all right
hiking men, that before left the Convention did not
y all that could have been done but all that was
proposed amendments Of the constitution. and that
omission to record the vote Of New York IL was
red was owing not to any act or omission Of mine, but
the efforts OF the minority Of the delegation, or some
them to prevent expression of the opinion Of the
orty and to the failure Of my associates Of the ma
ty TO execute IN my ABSENCE what had been resolved
is certainly with regret that write this note Ny
sference was for statement in which we all could
but my associates refused 70 enter intoany joint re-
hope, ALSO it will not be inferred from anything that
written that do not regret the omission to record
York as voting against what appeared to me an un
bal and perncious proposition. Though the Importance
Tho vote has been greatly magnined, and the result in
opinion, would not have been different il
vote OF New York had been counted, az
believe come States not voting would, IL me-
sary, have voted in the Affirmative; and If it had
OF no importance Whatever. Yet, should wish this
te Of which we are 80 proud always to appear,
matter Of ceremony, on the side Of freedom; ever
a. 70 the constitution as u Vs. but against placing there
hers. DAVID DUDLEY FIELD
lHw YORK, March 20, 1861. ~
tract from the Minutes Of the New York Delegation
kept by their Secretary.l
WEDNESDAY, Feb. 81, 1861.
few York delegation meet in the room, and Mr. Wads-
th moved that the New York delegation vote n0,' on
OF the sections Of the committees report. Messrs.
ming, Bronson, Granger, Wool and Dodge opposed,
ting that the vote of New York be given each sec.
as 1t called. The majority 0verruled, and de-
d to have the Chairman declare that New York voted
be question the first section Of the report being
cd, Mr. King stated that one Of the members Of the
deeg atiou had taken vote before he left which was
last the vote Of New York in the negative aud he ap
led TO the justice Of the Convention 70 have i so cast
ing that the vote Of the delegation had been 80 cast
previous day. The Convention decided that no per-
could vote who was not present.
he delegation was divided.
TWO.
tier from the Chairman OF the Massachusetts Deiega
WASHINGTON, March 8, 1861
Y DEAR SR-Your favor Of the 9th inst. Is before me-
err abiding to the fact that "my seat In the Peace
yention was at the table directly under the Pre-
:" you desire me "to inform you what took place on
occasion OF the vote Of New York being called, the
rning Of the 9th Of February" What | observed
Then The vote Of New York was called for, Governor
g and stated in substance, that you had short
RENE Court which had been assigned for that morn
and asked the permission Of the Convention to
the vote Of the state II your aosence the same as
iefs, Mr.. Corning I think 1t was, objected, saying
I the vote os New York was to be given as her Com
sioners who were present should decide, and that
Convention had no control or authority in the
ter. SOME conversation was then had between the
nmssicners who favored and those who opposed the
ding proposition, which did not boar with sufficient
inciness to unde rstand, and in minute or two
ernor King announced that the vote Of New York
divided. This is the substance OF what occurred, 80
as l observed IT, With great respect, your friend,
J. u. GOODRICH.
DAVID DypIEY FIELD, Esq, New York.
NO. THREE.
ff.etter to the Secretary of the Convention.1
New York, March 4, 1861.
GAR gIn-was any resolution passed by The Conven
on wednesday, the 27th February, respecting the
hi OF New York TO vote, affecting the vote OF that
q in the absence of any Of her Commissioners On
side am told that there was such resolution
sed or vote taken In my absence; on the other side
told that there was not. IL was passed will you
me the favor 10 give me copy OF ~ and opiigc, y
aAFrs J. WRIGHT, ESQ, &c.
NO. FOUR
TThe Secretary's Answer.
mo 1856 WIZARDS, WASHINGTON, March b, 1851.
)y.s srR-I have your letter When New York was
|Ad the inquiry was made, whether an absent member
IA vote stating that member Of that delegation
absent The President stated that an absent member
ld not vote. New York was stated divided, aud did
vote. Respectfully, &C. CRAFTS. Wright.
NO 1--WE
tract from the Journal Of the Convention, February
81, 1851
he question on the adoption Of said section resulted N
following VOTE
Oyls-Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Neg
sey Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, tennessee.
ss-Connecticut Low 10, Maine, Massachusetts, North
Tina, New Hampshire, Vermont, virginis-s.