The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-07-10

a and as they made this, the only prc
u test they could make, they made j
ry )r the honor of the party and @
n. tie country, and New York nigh
take lis place in column, and he hope
this convention would adopt the oil
Ot democratic method. Let every MAJ
le speak his sentiments and vote hi
n. sentiments, and then whatever senti
ment prevails, all would give them
:e hearty support. (Cheers)
l. Hon. ]. r. Doolittle, of Wisconsin
10 said the question was a Fundamental
,e one. That question was: "HaS a stat,
II the right to speak for itself, or not, il
IL the election of presidents of the United
, States?" The state always has spoker
Il as unit. 1t could do so in no Other
/ way. In naming man to be elected
o president of the United States should
Z That is my voice. The several states
as units of the democratic party, to
. defend the constitution, and the rights
i of states as well. This convention
should be slow to interfere with
e the powers of a state over its
!. delegates. By the federal consti-
tuition it is provided that the votes
: for president shall be by states, and
L that the voice of a state should be
obeyed by its electors. The same at
tempt that was made now, had been
made in the republican convention of
: 1880 in favor of General Grant, but
had been defeated. He admitted the
state convention of New York had
: adopted resolution to favor the unit
rule, and he had not opposed it be-
cause he believed the choice of the
.. majority would be what it was not
to-day. Laughter. The fact still
remained that whatever was done in
the New York state convention could
not control the action OF the national
democratic party. There was no
power in the convention that could
make recording secretary place
line in the minutes of the convention,
and falsify its proceedings. If the
chairman of the delegation announc-
ed twenty-four of his colleagues as
voting for certain candidate,
for whom they had already announced
their intention not to vote, the secre-
| colleagueS), would be reporting them |
voting in form which their lips de-
MED, and that would be an outrage on |
free speech.
Gen. Clunie, of California, said his
delegation came all the way from Cali
fornia to 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. 1t would be an outrage upon
the minority not to permit them to
vote according to the wishes of their
constituents. In the name of Justice,
decency and fair dealing, he called
upon the convention to permit the dis
trict delegates to vote in accordance
with the wishes of those who choose
them.
Mr.. Powers, of Michigan, advocated
the amendment offered by Mr.. Grady.
Why, he asked, should man be pre-
sented as a reform candidate, and an
attempt be made to nominate him?
Mr.. Harrison, of Illinois, argued that
if the state of New York had in
structed its delegates to vote as unit,
and if they failed so to vote, they
would be disobeying their state but
this convention had nothing to do with
that. (Applause.) He would proba-
bly, be found voting differently from
Mr.. Grady on the question of candi-
dates, and he wanted free vote now.
Mr.. Jacobs, of New Y 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 obe-
dent to the orders of the convention,
and bow to the will of the majority, |
(applause).
Mr.. Grady asked him if at the Sara
toga convention, there had been a !
word of discussion as to the unit rule.
Mr.. Jacobs replied that there had
not been but, it was because every
body had agreed to it in advance.
Mr.. John Kelly, of New York, ad-
vocated Mr.. Grady's amendment.
There were he said sixty-two counties
in the state of New York, of which
but ten or twelve were democratic.
According to the argument Of Mr..
Fellows, the great democratic coun-
ties of New York which would elect
a democratic president if an opportu-
nifty were given to them, would be
disfranchised. That was the principle
which was now presented. He ap-
pealed to the sense and hberality of
the convention in favor of Mr.. Grady's
proposition,
Mr., Fellows, of New York, again
spoke against the Grady amendment.
There has been, he said, an extraordi
nary misconception of the issue in
volVed. 1t did not look to sitting the
voice or repressing the sentiment of
any delegates. The question was
whether the state of New Y ork had a
right to say how the will of her ma
jority should be indicated. She would |
not permit her seventy-two separate
units to speak seventy-two different
desires, on any question before the |
convention. She recognized the DEM |
ocratic method of aScerta1ning what |
her will was, but when the will of the |
majority was aScertained, she had |
right to prescribe the form in which |
that will should be expressed. He |
asked Mr.. Kelly how it was |
that they too had obtained |
the credentials which permitted them |
to be here at all.
Mr.. Kelly replied that Mr.. Fellows
represented one branch of the demo- |
cratic party in the city of New York,
and he (Kelly) another.
Mr.. Fellows suggested that they
represented only different organiZa-
tions, in the democratic party.
Mr.. Kelly.said that the gentlemap'S
purpose now was toignore him (Kelly)
and not to allow him vote in the con-
vention 1t was against that he
(Kelley) protested (cheers).
Mr.. Fellows proceededed with his
argument. All that the majority of
the New York delegates desired to do
was to express her sentiments in
certain prescribed form. The conYen-
ton should not take away that right.
1t was a right dear to the state of
New York. If she were deprived of
that right she should feel degraded
and dfshonored. He declared ,iron1-
cally) that Mr.. Kelly and himself were
in tender sympathy with each other,
and he confessed that he had brighter
hopes set before him of better methods
and purer forms than when he found
from the lips of Mr.. Kelly and Mr..
Grady snch eloquent denunciation of
machine methods. Laughter and ap-
plause1 They all understood that ev-
erything which they did was the
spontaneous outcroppiDg of the popu-
lar will, Laughter.l and that the
Z hand of arbitrary power never con-
trolled their political methods. In
conclusion, he asked whether the con-
yention would strip New York of her
power in this matter. [Cries OF mo,