New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-10-05
4 PRETTY DEMOCRATIC QUARREL.


vention contained the following deliverance on
the subject of free canals-a deliverance well
worthy Of Jack Bunsby at his best: "We
"approve the submission to the vote OF inc
speople of the Constitutional amendment IN
"favor of free canals, and we have full conh-
"dence that they viii dispose Of it in such man
"ner az TO promote all the great interests OF the
State-agricultural manufacturing and COM
"mercial."
1t will be seen that this resolution is merely q
good illustration of the art of how not to DO
it, Nobody can tell from reading it what the
Democracy think of the free canal project
whether they are for it or against 1t. III Is not
unlike the resolution on the same subject
reported to the Saratoga Conventional care
fully premeditated evasion. We would not
have thought it worth while to allude to the
matter again were it not for the fact that the
resolution seems likely TO be the occasion OF
considerable bad blood in the ranks of the
Democracy. 1t is generally admitted that as
it stands it is as discreditable piece of chicane
as was ever submitted to the intelligent voters
of New-York The Democratic leaders realize
this fact and one of them, former chairman
of the Democratic State Committee, rises to
explain. The Rochester Union, the newspaper
Of which Mr. William Purcell is editor, states
that the resolution as it was first print led
following the adjournment of the Syracuse
Convention, and as it has continued to be
printed ever since, is not the resolution on the
subject of free canals that was prepared by the
Committee on Resolutions. Tue resolution
adopted by the committee read, according to
TIE Union, as follows: ResOtred, That we
o,Droya tha liberal ranal DoIipv comnrelpDdpQ
" in the Constitutional amendment to be voted
for at the coming election, and we recommend
"its adoption by the people of this State"
How did it happen if this was the committees
resolution that it suffered n sea-change into
something rich and strange" before 1t got into
the platform The Union informs us. 1t as
serts, in effect. that the committee were played
upon by certain of their own number. After
stating that the resolution as The Union prints
it was adopted by the committee at the only
meeting held by it, our contemporary proceeds
in this touching way: "The committee did
mot meet again. minority of it met next
smorning, and, assuming to reverse the deci-
L" sion of the majority the night before,
substituted the plank rejected for the plank
adopted The convention, paying little heed
" to the reading of the platform, supposed the
free canal plank was as it had been adopted,
"apd as it was unde rstOod, and voted under
" that supposition The Democratic platform
"reads rs The Union has printed it on the free
"canal question. No jugglery of defeated
aIninorlty of the Committee on Resolutions,
"and no newspaper apology for that jugglery,
"cau change it,"
Having given The Union the benefit of this
explanation, we may be permitted to add that
it will strike the average man with head on
his shoulders rs being phenOmenally thin.
is it possible that all the members of the
Committee on Resolutions that were in favor of
free canals were caught mapping If so, is it
also possible that all the members of a conven-
ton numbering half Il thousand souls that were
also IN favor OF free canals joined them in the
nap7 How could the convention suppose any
thing about tie nature of the resolution until
it was read 7 Is it the fashion in Democratic
conventions for the delegates to slumber while
the platform is being read These are some
of the questions that will be asked by those
who read The Upi0n'S explanation. Meantime
the minority of the Committee on Resolutions
have the floor. And they are not the men they
have been taken for if they do not hurl back "
The Unions charges and yindicate their
honor as platform builders.