, 1880-06-06
WEST VIRGINIA.

TWO SHERMAN AEN AD30I1EDs
The Chairman-The next question is upon that
portion Of the report which relates to the State
of West Virginia
Mr.. Conger, of Michigan-3ir- Chairman, the
next case is the case Of West Virginia, the Third
Conversational District The report of the Com
mittee is very brief, and will read it to the
Convention.
"1n the Third Congressional District tho Committee
refain ter t1 tt slt5G Rad and II
The seats Of these delegates were contested by J. W
bs rs
sss e e hs
Convention fr9m the GoqEreisinna! @ aisT3e ano tne
The contestants claim that there was meet
ing Of delegates Of tho Third Congressional Dis
trict, and that at that meeting they were elected
delegates to the National Convention as district
delegates There Is no question but that there
was called on the evening of the day Of the Con-
ventlou Il District Convention. There IS no ques-
ton but that some the delegates from that
in the opinion of a majority Of the Convention
it was proven, that there was not present ma
jority Of the delegates Of the district.
According to the custom in West Virginia,
each delegate was entitled to cast one
vote in the state Convention, ,1.,;oauI or in
votes Of some proceeding election. 1t was
claimed, and in the opinion Of the majority Of
the Committee proven, that there was not a in
the delegates or Of the votes represented by
those Delegates in that district. That Is the
only point before the Convention that the ma
jorIty have to report The only point which tho
majority have to report is that under this claim
they find that there WIS NOT majority Of tho
delegates from the Third Congressional District d tS
Delegate Convention, and therefore that
there was not majority major +,,oa Of ,vnno tho
eeS 10 or Cast OF hs for hese
otherwise the minority of the Committee, fol-
lowing the rule which they have adopted,
would hsve u 1ha M to
majority, the credentials Of the alternates were
either not presented or were omitted; and ask
that the Of the sitting e r.
tho report, and follow the fate Of the delegates
themselves: presume there Will be no OBJ
lection to that
After consideration, Mr. Conger said: I had
mistaken tho district; it is another district; I
recall thAt request
The Chairman called for the question on the
adoption of the ma iority report
Mr. Powell Clayton, Of Arkansas, offered the
following resolution:
T e 9 M oss
portion Vt tho majority report relating to the same.
Gen. Raum, Of Illinois, asked that the report
Of the minority On this fnnnct DC reqnr read he
reading OF thut report, US one of the members OF
that Committee, that assisted in the cxamfna-
ton Of that ease and state Deliberately y te this
Aunt eLe4n! hLn1 ~ olhuG7 ?ACGI-seAJ W 49, 4oot
with the illinois casc ana me Kansas case: any
Us % s @ 1hasa se frnn, Ennsas t.
is nroner also to seat thosc contcstng delegates
Of West Virginia.
The Chairmnu-The Chair will direct so much
Of The minority renort to be read.
The minority report was read BY the reading
clerk. Is follows;
Tba inortr wi.h tn ca11 .ha attention of the Con
ve1iinn nsnrc}ai1 "a the contest in West Virginia
I'VE Insist that 1t stands, in respect principle and
facts precisely upon the same ground Of the contests
10 ll!'nois Alabama. nna M ansas- M me
we're setecsea as H ~ oy ce ~ 1s v ras
s,on, dcicra1es IN attendnnce uppn the Stata Ton
ysntion Thetr names were reported 10 the Conven-
ton. The stato Consention refused to give them
delesates upon me ssoand tnaE & tne nf q
noananIs Vars mi fn accord MIN he majority OF
tha Stnfe ennvention
The minority insist that Il the report Of the majort
II in respect 10 Illinois Alabama und KANSAS Is