Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-06-16


honored himself by his remark.
A DENUSCIAIIoN AND AN APOLOGY.
Mr.. thompson (Int.) severely denounced
he chairman for bringing into the area of
THIS convention his person n ferences.
subsequently the chairman disavowe-
any intent TO abuse his powers, aud con
fessed his colleague had irritsted him Into a
Tetort, but be withdrew his remarks.
Massachusetts made a point of order that
the house was executing its order to ballot,
81 nothing but call OF the roll was Ia
Mr.. Thornbursh (Tenn.) moved to recon-
slider the vote sustaining the ruling OF the
chair, In order TO give Pennsylvania an op-
portunity TO be heard.
He yielded TO Mr., Cessna. who read the
second rule, providi1g that the vote of each
state shall be announced by its chairman.
srd The next rule, that there shall be no
ehspge OF vote until announced.
GREAT CONFUSION
here ensued, lasting some time. Mr.. Cessna
persisted In spea king, claiming he was here
In the interests OF peace and harmony and Of
The reading OF the instructions to the Penn
SyIvahla delegates to vote as q unit for
Hartranft Applause and confusiou.l
Mr. Stewart, of Pa, said hi. duty 10 those
who sent him here TO represent them was
paramount He had voted once for Hart
his duty TO represent them by casting q vote
Tor j ames q. Blaine. Laughter and cheers /
MI. Futhy, PAL OF the Chester district,
own district convention. His constituents
are
ALMOST A UNIT FOR BLAINE,
and be recognized no right OF any state con-
vention to bind them against the wishes OF
his people. He was entitled TO vote the seutt-
ments OF himself and those who sent him.
un Mni maie sMe0 suggested that by the
delegation they be allowed to retire TO con-
suit pending the roll call to determine and
report their votes and wishes. He would
trust that delegation with this question.
Mr.. POmeroy (N.Y. objected.
Mr.. Vanzandt r.. H. claimed that the dele
gates who had allowed themselves to be
elevated on the platform, requiring them
TO vote as unit, are bound by It. He warned
the convention against becoming q mob.
Mr. Oliver, of Pennsylvania, argued that
delegates to the repu blican national conven-
ton chosen by the state convention. and not
by the districts. Accordingly the Pennsyl-
vania chairman had been right In obeying
the order Of the delegation sustaining the
unit rule. This unit rule was adopted by
the convention III animously. believe In
allowing every man to vote as his people
OPPOSED To ALL GAG LAW.
MI. thompson asked whether we have the
Individual right to violate the Instructions
OF our state conventions and follow our per-
sonal views instead OF the directions OF the
party In each state. de urged that
the Pennsylvania delegates were bound
and policy to strictly obey the unit rule.
The resolution was written turning To the
chalrman) by you, sir. daughter and APP
The chairman
ORDERED THE RoLL-CALL TO PROCEED,
and no vote was taken on the motion to re-
consider, Pennsylvania being allowed to
stand-56 for Hartranft, for Blaine.
Mr.. Thornburg (Tenn.) called up again his
motion 70 reconsider the vote sustaining the
ruling OF the chair in the Pennsylvania case.
The roll was called on
THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER,
and resulted-yeas 3S1, nays 359. So
THE VOTE WAS RECoNsIDERED.
r aoH ha nIos ~
question required on sustaining the decision
Mr.. Ingerson CIlL) took the platform. ZAP
plause.I He said the question is, has each
delegate right to vote as his people wish
him TO vote, or can he by party machinery
be tied TO vote against their own wishes, his
ourselves before the people IL we seek to
force things in this way. What we want to
find is the choice of this convention and the
Mr.. Hotchkiss, of New York, urged that
the question is whether there is order, law,
or discipline in the republican party; wue.
nomination, the party is bound To It. he
believed in discipline, and advocated sus.
tanning the Pennsylvania delegation in
maintaining unit rule, 10 which their state
party in their state, had prescribed.
Mr.. Van ZaDdt, of Rhode Island, said that
70 sustain the cha1rman's ruling. would dis
tntegrate the republican party, because IL
these dissenting delegates In Pennsylvania
can disregard the Instructions of their state
convention they can 60 away from here and
bolt from any nomination here made.
Mr.. WoOdfOrd, of New York, said he had
no sympathy with the minority vote sought
to be cast from Pennsylvania, but he be-
ueved the very basis Of the existence OF the
republican party was the right of every man
to cast his vote precisely as he chooses.
AN APPEAL FOR FREEDoM OF ACTION.
Mr.. Thacher, Of Kansas, urged that this
convention make its own laws. 1t is su-
preme, IL Is original, and no convention or
caucus rules or agreements can be brought
In here TO bind this body. We are not here
to be driven like machines. There Is some
feeling that there is too much machinery
already In the party. Let every man vote
PRECEDENT OF 1853.
MI. Hale, of Maine, said that In 1868 the
republican party in the Chicago convention
had this question up on the Vice Presidency;
that Pennsylvania there presented one OF
her sons under instruction from her state to
present and stand by him. A single dele
gate from Pfttsburg then asserted the prin-
ciple OF Individual right to vote as he pleas
ed. He was overwhelmingly sustained, and
the chairman was instructed to cast the
vote, SO as to recognize the individual vote.
Mr.. Hale expressed regret that this side
issue had arisen to interfere with the regu-
Lar course of business.
Tennessee demanded and Virginia sus-
tanned the previous question.