Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-06-05


such rule, but we declare as our deliberate judg
ment that the majority propose for the adoption
of this convention an expost factO rule which
will operate with great injustice and virtually
| arrests the power OF this national convention
in seating delegates chosen in violation of the
long established usages of tho Republican par
ty of the State to be affected thereby. This
action we affirm is calculated to subject this
country to the criticisms of deciding contest,
with view of affecting the final result
of the nominations for President and Vice Pres
ident.
In reference to the contest of the three seats
from Alabama, we report that Jas. T. Rapier,
Willard Warner and VIM. P. Smith are not del
egates to this convention from Alabama, and
that vacancy in the delegation exists us to
the place claimed by Mr.. Rapier, which it is
proper should be filed by the duly elected and
accredited alternate in attendance in the cou-
venttion, and that the places claimed by Mr..
Warner and MIR. Smith are properly and regu-
larly filled by Arthur Bingham and Robert A.
Mosly, Jr. Here follows in the common re-
port long review of preliminary proceedings
in the conventions, which gave rise to the con-
tests
With reference to the State of Illinois the
minority submit through the convention to the
country brief prepared by counsel which
reviews the circumstances of the primaries,
county and State conventions, declaring with
the ninutest detail for the standpoint of
sitting members. 1t would occupy about four
newspaper columns. The points made are al
ready well known to the public and have been
published number of times. 1t is signed as
follows: B. F. Tracy, New York; Powell Clay
ton, Arkansas W. E. Concur. Webster Flame
gan, Texas; Green B. Raum, Illinois; William
J. Hooper, Maryland; Isaac Hayman. Alabama;
George s. Clark, Colorado; Richmond P. Stoll
Kentucky; Il. Z. Hagans, Missouri; J. M.
Thornburg, Tennessee; Jno. Cessna, Pennsyl-
vania; Charles @. Tompkins, Virginia
The minority are unable to agree with the
views of the majority in the Utah case, for the
following reasons: The setting delegates were
appointed by the executive committee elected
for years previous. and whose duty it was to
have called a Territorial convention. This
they refused to do against the wishes of the
representatives of the territory. The contestants
were appointed by Republican convention
called by large number of the leading Repub
licans of the Territory, in which the Republi-
can voters of the Territory were fully and
fairly represented. That the contestants ap-
pointed by that convention represent the
wishes of The Republicans Of Utah, and that
the action of the Territorial committee in
usurping the authority OF the people is con-
demned by the Republican voters of the Terri
tory, all of which Is clearly established.
The minority wish to call the attention of the
convention to the contest in West Virginia.
We understand That it stands in respect to the
principle and facts precisely upon the same
ground as the contests in Illinois, Alabama and
Kansas. The contestants were selected as dele
gates in caucus or convention, as chosen by the
majority CT the Congressional delegations.
Their names were reported to the State conven-
tlon. The State convention refused
to give them credentials to the
convention, but selected other
delegates upon the ground that the contestants,
although appropriately representing the senti-
ments of ther constituents, were not in accord
with the majority of the State convention. The
minority insist that if the report of the major
ity in respect to Illinois, Alabama and Kansas
cases are adopted, the contestants from West
Virginia should also be admitted to seats in
this convention in place of the sitting dele
gates. In the cases of Alabama
the following gentlemen signed
the report, Isaac Hayman of Alabama;
B. F. Tracy, New York; Powell Clayton, Ala
Hooper, Maryland; George T. Clark, Colorado;
H. E. Haven, Missouri; J. M. Thornburg, Ten
nessee; John Cessna, Pennsylvania; Charles E.
Tompkins, Virginia; W. J. Whiffer, South
Carolina.
Mr. Logan-Will the gentleman say that
there was any attorney appeared there for me?
l have no knowledge of it, Never heard of the
Mr.. Haymond-I will answer that gen.
tleman now. An attorney did appear without
authority. (Cries of ohD Mr.. President.
whilst the gentleman from Illinois is dis
tlnguished as soldier and as q
statesman, he also has reputation as
a lawyer, and whenever an attorney regularly
admitted at the bar of any court of Justice in
this State, the court named asks or questions
his authority. We have the high authority of
the gentleman himself that delegates whose
seats are contested should be set up in the GAL
lery until the contest has been determined and
the rule might be insisted upon here. In the
feeling that now exists. ask members of the
convention what objection any man can have to
an authoritative declaration on the part of the
That this contest was not well
founded. and that is all that is here if you
strike out this part of this report of the COM
mittee and adopt no resolution determining
that contest. / clai m that neither one of the
four delegates at large from the State of
Illinois would be entitled to vote upon the
floor.
Mr.. Oonaea presented, in behalf of the ma
iority, corrected roll of members to accord
with the report, and asked that the convention
now consider the Louisiana case.
Mr.. Cessna to facilitate business, moved to
divide the report into five general parts. That
the first part thereof shall embrace all the
opinion; that the second general division of
the report shall embrace the State of Alabama;
that the third general division of the report
shall embrace the State of Illinois; that the
fourth division shall embrace the State of Vir-
ginia and that the fifth general division of the
report shall embrace the territory of Utah, and
ask that that general division may be made.
I make the request. believe it is right. I
trust the Chair will allow it, reserving the right
to make further divisions of these general
and 1 ask that the vote May be
taken on the first branoh of this report without
further reading or controversy, for the reason
that we have all agreed upon all of these pro-
positions except four. That the undisputed
and agreed upon portions of the report might
first be adopted and then we will take up the
contested States in their alphabetical order.
The Chair-The chairman of the committee
moves that the convention now proceed to the
consideration of the State of Alabama. Is the
gentleman prepared to accept the suggestion
of the gentleman?
Mr.. Conger-Not at present The committee
had divided the subject into eleven parts,
which he thought better plan.
After long debate on this question and CO.
relative points during which Conkling asked
the chair for some information as to the COM
position of the list and as to what would be the
class of undisputed cases, falling within
Cessna s motion, Mr.. Conger said: Under that
case, the Second Illinois district and the ques-
tion of delegates at large from Illinois, the
Fifth and Ninth Pennsylvania dis
tricts, the Second and Third
Kansas districts, the Ninteenth Pennsylvania
district, would be excluded from debate, both
majority and minority reports having agreed
upon those cases.
At this point Logan arose and objected to
the appearance in the report of allusion to the
delegates at large from Illinois as being con-
tested.
Mr.. Haymond-As a member of the COM
mittee on credentials, desire to state to this
convention the position in which in
my judgment if this motion is car
ried, the delegates from Illinois
will be left. Their seats are contested and no
judgment will have been passed upon them.
The gentlemen say oh, no! but 1 say oh, yes
There has been submitted to this convention a
document signed by distinguished members of
this State chalIenginn the ripht of thosa uan-