The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1884-07-12

New York delegation who would not only
give their reasons why one CANDIDATE should
not get the nomination, but would have the
r'ght to i've their votes TO that candidate
VINO they thought would be elected, HI!
HI. HI. and opposing Kisses from the gal
lcries,l
that when the New York delegation left thai
State II was understood that their votes would
bc decidedly one way, but by political conlbi'
nations the peoples will was sought 10 be in
terierod with. and so they made this
tue onIy protest they could make. They made
it for the honor OF the party and for the honor
Of the country, and so that New York might
take Its place in the Democratic column. lie
hoped that this convention would adopt the
Old Democratic method: Let every man
speak his sentiments. and vote for his sentl-
ments," and then, whatever sentiments pre-
vail, all would give them a hearty support.
lCheers.l
This convention should be slow 10 interiors
with the powers of the state over its dele
General Cluni. of California, said his delega-
ton had come all the way from California 10
vote for the great political reformer of the
age, samuel j. Tilden. Speaking TO the
question at issue, he said the delegates from
New York had been elected by districts and
at large, and II would be an outrage upon the
minority not u permit them TO vote according
to the wishes of their constituents.
Mr.. Powers, of Michigan, advocated the
amendment offered bv Mr.. Grady,
4.
State of New York had instructed its dele
gates TO vote as a unit, and ii they failed so TO
vote, they weuld be disobeying their State
but this convention had nothing 70 90 with
found voting differently from Mr.. Grady on
the question of candidates. but he wanted
free vote now.
Mr.. Jacobs, of New York, said that he was
one of the minority and would exercise his
privilege of voting against the choice of the
majority; but as Democrat and as man
loyal to his constituents, he would be obedt
and bow to the will of the majority. lap
plause.l
John Kelly. OF New York, advocated
s.xty-two counties in the State of New
York, of which but ten TO twelve were
Democratic. According to the argument OF
Mr., Fellows; the great Democratic conn
ties of New York (Which would elect Demo
cratic President If opportunity were given
to them would be DISTINGUISHED. That was
the principle which was now presented, and
he appealed to the sense and liberalty of the
convention in favor of Mr.. Grady's PROPOSE
ton.
against the Grady amendment. There had
been, he said, an extraordinary mis- 1oncep
ton of the issue involved. 1t did not
look 10 sitting the voice or repressIng
the sentiment OF any delegate. Ihe
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 seventy-two separate de-
srcs on any question before the convention
She recognized the Democratic method OF as
certaining what her will was, but, when the
will of the ma ority was ascertained she had
a right to prescribe the form III which that
will should be expressed. He asked Kelly
hew it was that they, too. had obtained the
credSntials 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.
Mr.. Fellows suggested that they represent
ed only different organizations in the Demo
cratic party.
MIR. Kelly said that the gentleman's purpose
now was to ignore him kelly and not TO az
low hima vote in the convention. II was
Mr.. Fellows proceeded with his argu
ment, All that the majority OF the
New York delegates desired was TO do VIVA,
thor State had instructed them to dO-eX
press her sentiments in II certain prescribed
form. The convention should not take away
that right. Ii was right dear to the State
OF New York. If she were stripped OF that
right she would feel degraded and dishon
ored. In conclusion he asked whether the
National Convention would strip New York
OF her power in this matter Cries OF mo.
Mr. Bragg, of Wisconsin, regarded the
question as one whether an attorney with
DELEGATE ed powers should be permitted to VIC
late and exceed those powers, ana whether
the convention, sitting as Judge on thal
be hound by it.
Mr. Burke of Louisiana, spoke Of the quar-
relS and controversies and arms OF the twC
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 vote on he 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 the state
when all the other States were called the az
gregate without New York stood: Yeas, BE-
nays, 39l. The vote of New York was tner
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 hat
the vote recorded as announced.
The general result was then announced a:
ayes, BE-; noes, 1853.
The vote was then taken on the origna
motion offered by Mr. Smalley, of Vermont
and il was adopted.
The committees on Credentials, Permanerf
Organization and Platform were then ap
pointed.
Daniel w. VOORHEES,, of Indiana offered {
resolution to give TO the representatives o.
the several Territ cries and District of Colum
ba all the rights and privileges of the severa
State deegatc The resolution was re ferreC
To the Committee on Resolutions, after which
the convention adjourned until eleven o clocl
This morning