Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-07-09

j
6ofo, but there's no power 10
Mat so. There were reso.
unen in the New York
afhon who would not only
hoIk own reasons ask why one
|do<o should not get the nomina-
bu<@ou,d have their right To
ln1 votes to that candidate who
1n111ght would be elected.
x1|1o b Virginia made a point OF
} tE1t the discussion was not in
(. Donding the temporary organi-
y 81 the convention, but the point
0oVer ruled by the chairman.
~ continued his speech. He
HAT when the New York delega-
len that state II was understood
vote would be decidedly one
hut. -by political combinations,
,eoplo's will ought not to be inter-
VIM and as they made this, the
~ kt they could make, they
) the honor of the party anu
e, Intry, and New York might |
blace in the column. He |
convention would adopt |
6niocIatic method. Let every |
'6dUnk his sentiments and vote his
'If6nb, and then whatever senti-
!, UF6VAils all would give them a
& 0upport [ch, ersl.
a. !. n. Doelittle of Wisconsin
,Ehe Question was a fundamental
Thlt the question was, Has the
!; the hight 10 speak for itself or
b The Election of presidents of the
I'd States? The state always has
b - . unit. Ii it could do so in
her Way, the naming man to be
"a pecsident of the United States
IA 6e chosen in the same way.
slsmy. voice. The several states
,mlts Ofthe Democratic party TO de-
the constitution and the rights of
tAteo Is well. This convention
ID 10 Glow to interfere with the
>rs Of the states over their dele
I BY the federal constitution 1t
3vfded that the votes for president
I'd be by states and that the voice
b states should be obeyed by its
sors. The same attempt that was
) now had been made in the Re
4cAn Convention of 1850 in
, OF Gen. Grant, but had
! defeated. He admitted the state
aentlonof New York had adopted
1lufl0u to favor the unit vote and
1Ad not opposed it, because he be-
"a the choice of the majority would
.1&t II was not to-day. Laughter
ltnct still remains that whatever
lone In the New York state con-
Non could not control the action of
bational Democratic party. There
40 power In the convention that
Y. make reporting secretary place
v In the minutes of the conven-
rand falsify its proceedings. If
hairtnRn of the delegation an
. ced twenty -four of his colleagues
| ting for IA certain candidate, for
IN they already announced their
ntion not to vote and the secretary
. sorted them, he and his colleagues
. d be reported as voting in a form
b their lips denied, and that
nd be an outrage on free speech.
10. Clunie of California said his
llsation came all the way from CAL
IA to vote for the great political
'tsler Of the age, Sam j. Tilden.
King to the question at issue he
che delegates from New York had
by districts and at large.
. luld be an outrage upon the mi
q Y not to permit them to vote ac.
J ug to the wishes of their constit-
VI. In the name of justice, decency
tair dealing he called upon the
to permit the district dele
.m to vote in accordance with the
'res Of those who chose them. :.
M Powers of Michigan advocated
h Rpnendment offered by Grady.
w 08'tnked, should u man be pre-
u ~ Z reform candidate and an
1a lpt be made to nominate him by
ujine methods?
,rrrison of Illinois argued that If
hate Of New York had instructed
d tlegates to vote as unit, and If
abu<ailed so to vote, they would be
their state, but this con-
Dion had nothing to do with that.
He would probably be
l. voting differently from Mr..
thu on the question of candidates.
1ue Q wanted free vote.
2. jacobs OF New York said that he
,stsnc Of the minority, and would
houlse bis privilege of voting against
/, thtoice OF the majority, but as a
vucrat. and as man, loyal to his
.rdttuents, he would be obedient 10
ders of the convention, and bow
rare will of the majority. Ap-
mss Grady asked him If at the Sara,
there had been q
10 lot discussiOn as to the unit rule.
NM Jacobs replied that there had
cspen, but 1t was because ever yb0dy
n greed to il in advance.
tb,Ii Kelly of New York advocated
,sw 3 amendment. There were, he
- sixty-two counties in III. state
oekw York of which but ~" or
,wirs were Democratic. According
M .i alignment of MIR. Fellows, The
= G Delpocratic counties of New
4 r. (Which would elect a Democratic
'hs. ent, jf an opportunity were given
~ dm) would be DISTINGUISHED. That
IN 1o pnnciple which was now pre-,
IN He appealed to the sense and
i silty of the convention, in favol
!. \ ani, GIPdy's proposition.
ysg eilows again spoke against the
Nh, amendment. There had been
~ arr ~ extraordinary misconcep'
,A TIE issue involved. 1t did not
. !, ~ a sitting the voice OIL
y !4E the sentiment of any dele
h. 4A uestion was whether the
..Si Xew York had right to Say
' w al of her majority should bt
NJ W. She would not permit hel
= N 70 separate units to speak
~ lized the Democratic methoC
Az ping what her will was, bu
4 will of the majority wal
NJ she had a right to prescribe
~ b which that will should b,
He asked Kelly how /
n they, too, had credential
! omitted them to be here a