The semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1882-1886, 1884-07-09

.,ote in favor of Grady's ameno
Tpont, He said, nnless 1t was CARR
the voice of a large number OF poop,
If New York would be st'ned. u
aisn said the question as o whol
Now York should vote did NJ
come from the State convention
That is the reason no pro'es' wa
male. r.,;e,r,;s
favored Grady's amendment. :.
Powers, Of Michigan, spoke j
favor of Grsdy's amendment. II
said it was a great Democratic prin
cinle that the humblest dlstric
should be represented.
Carer Harrison, Mayorof Chicago
took the fuor and was received VIII
wild cheers. He said the convention
had nothing to do with State IN
structions: that every delegate hat
the right to he heard.
Senator Jacobs Of New York
spoke against the amendment. H'
said he bowed to the superior viii
and power of his State and though
the amendment was in accordance
with Lis feelings.
Kelly took the floor amid grea1
! cheering. He thanked the conven
| ton for the liberal views expressed
| aud said the action of his Stat
| left him with no alternative but t.
appeal to the convention. He hoped
t at the counties interested would
not he disfranchised.
Fellows took the floor again and
said there was a misconceItlon of the
question. Tn. question is whether
New York has u right Or o to say
how the will OF her majority shall b.
represented.
A discussion arose between Fell
lows and K-liy as to the manner OF
their election IS del. gates
Kelly said the manner was alike,
but un,ier MIR. Fellows o opinion he
lKeil>) Was to have no representa-
ito" excepting through M Fellows.
Fellows said he had great hop 8
when he heard slch an el. quent de-
nunciation hy Mr.. K.lly, Grady and
Cochran Of machine methods.
Fellows, continuing, said they had
u right to say how TIE will. of the
majority should be indicated. He
would not permit her II separate
units to speak ~ separate desires ON
ANY question before the convention.
recognized the Democratic ,ueth-
Ut a%sc-rtaining what he rw,lI was,
tut when the will of the majority
was entertained he had a right 10
prescribe the form in which that will
be Expressed. He asked k.l-
ly how it Was that they too had OF
t. cir credentials which per-
mltted them to be here at all.
Kelly replied that Mr.. Fellows
IT Presented n Democratic ,,srtv II
the city of New York and he (KellA)
another.
Fellows suggested that they repre-
sentrd only different organizations
in the Democratic party.
Kelly said that the gentleman's
purpose now Was to ignore him (keI-
~ and not to allow him q vote in
he convention. 1t Was against that
h- kelly protested. 1Chee,s
Fellows proceeded with his argu-
All that the majority of New
ofk delegates desired Was to do
what their State had instructed
hem to dO-express their sentiment
n u certain prescribed form. The
% venti"n should MT take away
right. 1t Was a right dear to
he State of New York. If she was |
ripped Of that right she would feel |
degraded, dishonored. He declared.
IRONICALLY, that Mr.. X lily and him
ielf were in tender sympathy Win
ZACH other. He confessed that he
lad q brighter hope set before him
Vi better methods and purer lorn,s
when he found from the lips of Mr.
Kelly and MI. Grady snch eloquent
remuneration OF machine Methods.
laughter and appiause.) They al
understood that ever, thing which
hey d'u in NV York was toe spon-
aneouso utcropp'ng Of popular will,
'aushter), and the hand of arbitrary
'oWer never controlled their pulitl-
q! methods. In conclusion he
whether the National Conven-
ion would strip New York of her
o. er In t1ls matter. (Cries of nu.)
Bragg, OF Wisconsin,, regard d tie
uestiou as one whether al att roey
'lth a delegates power coui.t be
ermltted to violate and exceed
u ST powers, and whether the con
eh'loii, sitting as a judge on that
'lestl"D, would recognize such
and be- bound by jl. j.
Hark, of Louisiana, spike of the
uarrel4, controversies aud CLAIMS of
- Two Democratic factions OF New
"rK. and took tue sau.e view of the
lestlon as that presen ed by Bragg ,
WISCONSIN,. Iflt would b+ an OUT {
'He, he SAID, to deprive individual :
'!+gates OF the right to their own !
)ice, 1t would be a still greater out ;
re 10 deprive a great State of her :
nee In the convention The .
'taker then read the in truclions To :.
i as a unit, PASSED 10y the Sara :,
ga conveutl"n. New York alon. 1
III the right to demand it in tn. I.
ate convention. Every member =
'm that State in TIL, convention -
TED for the enforcement If The 4
ut rule, and the delegation Itself g
q declared by more than Two. Z!
l1s majority that its chairman f.
'ula express the will of The State :,
casting us seveny-two votes as h,
e He bade them probe before ~
struck down ru,hlessIv tie *. Ia
'>s will of the sovereign stare of u
w York as given in the resolution p<
lic:I lie had IT ad. "a
denzIes, of Indiana, offered as an W
endMent TO the amendment that n
State shall change its vote until ~
result OF the ballot has Deen an ~
lnced. d"
frady.. of New York, spoke il sup ~
t OF his amendment. He claimed VI
I the delegation from New York 81
not been represented in this n.",
Iter. There Was great danger, he w.
l, that through the 30 wer and in> 81
OF political machinery the oe
est anu truthful opinion OF New ~.
K might not have It's proper tcrce Ia
e.. The Newspapers might be ~
ght to prin in their columns that ~
did Votes FROM New York would S"'
asst for one candidate, but there
no power to make that as there
e reSnlule men in tho Nan, W