Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-07-09

| NlooaI Preferences a. EXPRESSED shall
ne recorded as the vote of zach State. '
| lAppiause,
John K. Fellows Of Ma York said
that the convention of his State had
directed that in compliance vith i'm
memorial usage in that State the sentI-
ments OF the majority should be ascer-
talned. and that having been done the
vote OF the Mes York delegation shsuld
thereafter be cast a. a unit. The con-
vention of New York having placed
upon It's delegates that trust, he eaAl-
ienRed the right Of this convention To
strip the New York delegation of the
rights thereby conferred. Such action
would not pass without protest from
1T least some of the members of that
bod. The speaker then read the in
struction TO act as a unit passed by the
Saratoga convention.
Powers Of Michigan advocated the
amendment offered by Grady. Why.
he asked, should a man be presented
az reform candidate and an atteups
be made to nominate him by rnachfne
methods! iAPplaase.
Harrison. of illinois, argued that if
tke 1tate OF New YORK had instructed
It's delegates as unit, and il they failed
TO 80 vote. they would BE disobeyinQ the
state, bot the Conventioe had nothing
10 DO With that. (Applause. He would
PROBABLY be found voting differently
from Mr.. Grady on the question of can
dIdstes, bat he wanted free vote new.
Jacobs, of New York. said that be was
OF the minority, and would exercise his
privilege OF voting against the choice of
tue majority, bGt a. Democrat and a
man loyal 10 his constituents he would
be obedient 20 the orders of tie state
Convention, and bow 70 the will of the
majority. (Applause.i
Grady asked him If at the Saratoga
Convention there had been a word Of
discussion az to the unit rule.
Jacobs replied that there bad not
been, bat IL was because everybody mad
agreed 20 it in advance.
John Kelly, of New York, advocated
the Grady amendment. There we're, be
said, sixty two counties in the State of
New York, of which but ten or twelve
were Democratic. According to the ar
gument Of Mr.. Fellows, the great
Democratic counties of New York
which would elect a Democratic
President II an Opportunity we're given
10 them. would be disfranchised. That
was the principle which was nov repre-
sented. and he appealed TO the sense
and liberalIty of the Convention in favor
OF Mr.. Grady's proposition.
Fellows, of New York, again SPOKE
against the Grady amendment. There
had been, they said, an extraordinary
misconception of ths issue involved. X
did not look to sitting tie voice or re-
pressing the sentiment Of any delegate.
The question was, whether tue State of
New York had a right 10 say how the
will of her majority should be indicated.
She would permit her ~ separate repre-
sentatives to speak ~ separate desires
on any question before the Convention.
She recognized the Democratic method
of ascertaining what her will was, but
when the will of the majority Was as
certained, she had right 10 prescribs
the form in which that will should be |
expressed. He asked Kelly how it was
that they. too. had obtained their Gre
dentiais, which permitted them 10 be |
here at all.
Kelly replied that Mr.. Fellows repre- |
sented one Democratic party in the city |
of New York, and he kelly another.
Fellows suggested that they alike re- |
presented only different organizations |
In the Democratic party.
Kelly said that the gentleman's |
purpose now must be to ignore |
Kelly and not to allow him To vote in |
the Convention. Ii was against that |
they kelly protested. ICheers.
Fellows proceeded with his Argument. |
All that the majority of the New York |
delegates desired was to do what their |
State had instructed them. 10 express
its sentiment IN certain prescribed /
form. The committee should not take /
- Ia -. a
the State of New York. IL she was
stripped OF that right she would feel
degraded ami dishonored. He declared.
ironically, that Mr.. Kelly and himself
were IN tender sympathy with each /
other. He confessed that he had
brighter hope set before him of better
methods and forms when he fouad from |
,he lips of Mr.. Kelly and MIR. Grady |
such eloquent Remuneration of machine |
methods. Laughter and applause. |
They all understood that everything |
which they did in New York was the /
spontaneous outcropping of the popu-
lar will laaghter and that the hand OF /
arbitrary power never controlled their /
political methods. In conclusion he /
asked whether the National Convention
would strip New York of her power in
this matter. Cries Of mo"
Bragg of Wisconsin regarded this
question a. one in which an attorney,
with delegates powers, could be per-
mitted TO violate and exceed those pow
srs. and whether sitting as a Judge on |
that question he would recognize such |
violation and be- bound by Il.
Burke, Of louisiana, spoke of the
quarrels and controversies and Gains
Of the two Democratic factions IF New
n n - -.
question as that presented by Bragg of /
Wisconsin,. IL IL woaid be N outrage,
he said, to deprive individual dele2a-
tons of the right of voting their own |
choice, IL would be q still greater out |
rage 20 deprive q great State OF her
voice in the convention. The vote Of |
delegations should b. governed. Mes
York alone had q right 60 command il.
In the State Convention every member /
from that State in this convention voted /
for enforcement OF the unit rule, aud /
the delegation itself declared. BY more /
than a two-thirds majority, that its
chairman should express the wish of /
the State by casting its seventy-swo |
votes as one.
Hon. A. J. Doolittle, of wisconsin. |
said tbs question Was q fundamental |
one; that toe question vas the States |
right t. speak for itself. not in the cleo |
ton OF President of the United States. |
The State hss always spoken ~ unit. |
IL she could do in no other way in |
naming n man TO be elected President |
of the United States, should he not be
chosen in the same way--that Is, By the
voice of the several States ss unit 7
Tue Democratic party ought 90 defend
the constitution and the rights OF States
AZ well in this convention. Whatever
was done in the New York State Con-
ventson could not control the action Of
the National Democratic Convention.
Meazier Of Indiana offered AZ an
amendment that no State shall change
its vote until the result OF the ballot
has been announced.
Grady of New York spoke In support
Of his amendment. He claimed that
she delegation from New York bad been
represented In this matter. There was
great danger, be said. thai through the
power and influence of political ma
chinery the honest and truthful opinion
of New York might not have It's proper
force. The newspapers might be
| haruhs ts fSrinf in THAR columns that