The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-07-09

power to make that true, as Chi hi)
there were resolute men in the
New York delegation who would
not only give their reasons why one
candidate should not get the nomi-
nation, but would have the right to
give their votes to that candidate
whom they thought would be
elected. (Hi hi hi and oh oh oh
and hiss3s from the galleiies.)
Harris. Of Virginia, made q roint
of order that the discussion was not
in order pending the temporary or.
ganization Of the convention, but
the point was overruled by the
chairman.
Grady continued his speect: There
was no power in the convention
that could Nuke q rep rting secre-
tary place lie In the minutes of
the convention and falsity its pros
ceedings. If the chat man of the
delegation announced twenty four
Of his colleagues as voting for a GER
tain candidate for whom they
already announced their inten ion
not to vote, and if the secretary &c
reported them he and his colleagues
would be reported asserting in a
form which their lips dei led, and
would be an outrage on free speech.
General OluDie, of Califo mia. said
his delegation had come all the way
from California to vote for the
greatest political rcformer OF the
age. Samuel j. Tild n. Speaking
to the question at issue he said
the delegation from New York had
been elected by districts and at large,
and it would be an on rage on to e
minority not to permit them to vote
according to the wishes of their CON-
stituents. In the name of justice,
decency and fair dealing he called
upon the convention to permit the
district delegations to vote in sc
cordancs with the wishes of those
who chose them.
Hon. A J. Doolittle, of Visions
sin, said he question was fanda-
mental one. That question was q
state right to speak for itself, CT not
in the election of the President OF
the United States. The State always
has spoken as a unit, 1t could &C so
in no other way in naming a man to
be elected President of the United
States. Should he not be chosen ia
the same way, that is, by the voice
of the several States as a unit OF the
Democratic party, to defend the con-
stltution and the rights OF States ss
well? This convention, whatever
was done in the New York State
convention, could not control tee
action of the national Democracy
The vote was then taken on the
amendment offered by Grady of
New York, requiring The indy dlal
preference OF delegates to he re-
corded as the vote of their State.
There was great iuteres. NANTES ed
during the taking of the vote. The
vote Of the State of New York was
withheld temporarily, and when all
the other St.!es were called the
aggregate without New YORK
stood-ayes 332, noes 391. The vote
OF New YORK was then called for,
and Manning, the CHI airman OF the
delegation, announced seventy-twC
votes in the negative. That vote
was challenged by the convention
but the temporary chairman had
The vote rec"r Jed as announced
The general result vas then an
nounced as ayes Csc, noes AS.
The v9te was hen taken on the
original resolution offered by SINAI
ley. of Verm mt, ard ii was edoated
A res luton was then offered and
ad 'pte for the appointment Of q
conn ittee on credent isls snd per
manent organiZa ion A committee
o. platform was also ordured, and /,
was ordered that all resolutions in
regard t. the platfnrm he referre.!
70 the committee without discus
sion.
Francis, of Missouri, moved that
when the convention adjourned il
ne Ii | IL o'clock tomorrow morn
ing. The motion prevailed.
The secretary announced Cor.
rection of the vote on Grady's
amendment as follows: Total vote
cast, 795; for the amendment, 1872
against, 1853: not voting, Z.
Adjourned.