The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1884-07-11

age, Samuel j. Tilden. Speaking to the
question atissue. he said the delegates from
New York had been elected by districts and
at large, and II wolIld be an outrage upon the
minority not to permit them to vote according
to the wishes of their constituents.
Mr.. Powers. OF Michigan, advocated the
'smendmentoffere1b by Mr.. Grady.
Nj. Harrison. of Illinois, argued that If the
state of New York had instructed its dele
gates to vote as unit, and if they failed so to
vote, they weuld be disobeying their State
but this convention had nothing to do with
that. tApplause.l He would probably be
fount Voting differently from Mr. Grady on
the question of candidates, but he wanted q
free vote now. 5 sas
Mr.. Jacobs, of New York. said that he was
one of the minority and would exercise his
privilege of voting agninst the choice of the
majority; but as Democrat and as man
loyal TO his constituents, he would be obedi-
ent to the orders of the State Convention
and bow to the viii of the majority. Jap
plause.l ssaT
John Kelly. Of New York, advocated
sIxty-two counties in the State of New
DIRK, of which but ten TO twelve were
Democratic. According to the argument OF
MI. felloWs. the great Democratic coun-
ties of New York (which would elect Demo-
cratic President if an opportunity were given
to them would be DISTINGUISHED. That was
the principle which was now presented. and
ne appealed to the sense and lbefalty of the
convention in favor of Mr.. Grady's PROPOSE
ton
Mr.. Fellows of New York, again smoke
against the Grady amendment. There had
been, he, said, an extraordinary missoneep-
tlon Of the issue involved. 1t did not
looh to sitting the voice or depressing
the sentiments OF any delegate. The
question was whether the State of New
YORK had right to say how the will
OF her majority should be indicated. She
would not permit her seventy-two sepa-
rate units to speak seyenty-two separate de-
sires on any question before the convention.
q 0T
pertaining what her will was, but, when the
Will OF the maj ority was ascertained she had
a right to prescribe the form in which that
viii should be expressed. He asked Kelly
hew twas that they, too, had obtained the
credentials which permitted them to be here
at ALL
Kelly replied that Mr. Fellows represented
one Democratic party in the City of New York
and he kelly another. sfuf
Mr.. Fellows suggested that they represent
ed only different organizations in the Demo-
cratic party. a 1pi 1855
Mr.. Kelly said that the gentleman's purpose
now, was to ignore him kelly and not to al
low hima vote in the convention. 1t was
against thatthathe Kelly protested. 01heers).
y, Mr.. Fellows proceeded with his argu-
ment. All that the majority Of the
New York delegates desired was to do what
their State had instructed them to .60-ex-
press her sentiments in certain prescribed
form. The convention should not take away
that right. 1t was a right dear to the State
of New York. If she were stripped of that
right she would feel degraded and dishnn-
ored. In conclusion he asked whether the
National Convention would strip New York
of her power in this matter. Cries of ''No.')
Mr.. Bragg, of Wisconsin, regarded the
question as one whether an attorney with
delegated powers should be permitted to vio-
late and exceed those powers, and whether
the convention, sitting as a Judge on that
question, would recognize such violation and
be bound by it.
Mir. Burke, of Louisiana spoke of the Quar-
controversies 10 fIvn
Democratic factions of New York, and took
the same view of the question as that pre-
sented by Bragg, of Wisconsin. He moved
to lay the Grady amendment on the table.
After some parliamentary objections, the
motion to lay on the table was withdrawn,
and the previous question was moved and sec
onded.
The amendment offered by Mr.. Menzies, of
Indiana, was withdrawn, and the convention
proceeded to voteOn The amendment offered
by Mr.. Grady, of New York, requiring the in
dividual preferences of the delegates to be re-
corded as the vote,of their State.
There was great interest manifested during
the taking of the vote. The vote of theS STATE
of New York was withheld temporarily and
when all the other States were called the ag-
gregate without New York; stood: Yeas 332;
nays, 391. The vote of New York was then
called for, and Mr. Manning, the Chairman of
the delegation, announced ~ votes in the
negative. That vote was challenged by Mr..
Cochrane, but the Temporary Chairman had
the vote recorded as announced.
Tie general result was then announced as
ayes, 1872; noes, 463.
The vote was then taken on the original
motion offered by Mr.. Smalley, of Vermont
and it was adopted.
The committees on Credentials, Permanent
Organization and Platform were then APP
pointed. Aa 0
Daniel w. Voorhees,, of Indiana, offered a
resolution to give TO the representatives Of
the several Territories and District of Column
bia all the rights and privileges of the several
State delegates. The resolution was referred
the convention adjourned until eleven o clock
this morning. J N7 X