Morning journal and courier., 1884-07-09


 l the New York delegates were there as repre- sentatives of congressional districts with their preferences aa to candidates and should not be bound by the unit rule of any State con- vention.- This great national council, he thought, was competent to get at the truth and make it's own rules. If the convention failed to adopt this amendment there were resolute men here who would net fail to sx- press their preferences in some way. del egate from Virginia made ths point of order that tue convsntion was not yet organized and could not act on any resolution such as the one under discussion. The chair over- ruled the point.
 JOHN R. FELLowEs WAS ON HIS FEET
 in a moment He defied all the other States to stripfrom New York her sovereignty, and say her loyal subjects shall not obey her mandate. NeA York had instructed seventy two votes to speak as the voice of one man. The seventy-two votes would not violate their instructions. But, moreover this question has been put to vote in the delegation and over two-thirds voted in fsYor of the unit rule. He bade the delegates from other States pause before they struck down the sovereign will of the New York Democrats expressed in the con- New York to head the Democratic column in November. He therefore appealed to those States interested in carrying New York to be careful how they proceeded. He doubted whether this convention had the power to re- verse the action of the Saratoga convention. He had the resolution of instruction of the Saratoga convention requiring the delegation to act as unit under the direction of the majority. The other States had no right to dictate what the will of New York was MT. Grady sat in that convention and every man in it voted for these resolutions. He did not object to any member expressing publicly the reasons that impelled him to differ from the majority, but he insisted that New York should vote as one G. V. Menzies, Of Indiana, offered an amendment to the amendment to the effect that no State should change it's vote until the other States had voted and the result been announced. SENATOR GRADY RESUMED THE FLOOR.
 He said that the New York delegate who preceded him had challenged the convention to strike the sovereign will of the New York Democracy expressed in convention. He de- nied that it was the sovereign will of the New York Democracy. It was the sovereign will of the New York State machine. This he l said had no authority to prescribe any rule for the guidance of the district delegates. He Grady was district delegate and recognized no authority on the part of any machiae to dictate how he should vote. The unit rule was undemocratic and should be done away with.
 SENATOR GRADY WAS GREETED WITH KISSES, necessitating the president to rap for order. Judge Doolittle, of Wisconsin, addressed the convention in favor of sustaining and enforc- ing the instructions of the New York con- vention on the ground that the State voted as 8 unit in electing President. MT. Pow CTS, of Michigan moved that the amendments be referred to the committee on rules when appointed. The motion was put and lost. MT. Cochrane, of New York, was then recOg nized. He spoke in faver of the resolution. He asked whether the New York Democ- had ika candidates. No, it had not. Nor did the New York Democracy say that the New York delegates should vote as 8 unit The edict was given out by machine, not by the De- mocracy of New York. Free speech and free deliberations were thrown cut of the window. He did not believe this convention would instruct the recording secretary to re- cord living lie. General C1unie of Cali- fornia, said it was an outrage to permit a majority of any State in the convention to deprive the minority of it's vote O. w. Powers, of Michigan asked why should the convention attempt to stife the voice of del egates because they happened to be in the minority. He did not re what the precedent was. It was undemocratie and should be done away with. It came with bad grace from the advocates of a reform candi- date to attempt machine methods. Mayor Harrison argued that if New York had in- structed it's delegates to vote as 8 unit and if they failed to so vote they would be dis obeying their State, but this convention had nothing to do with that. He would probably be found voting differently from Mr. Grady on the question of candidates, but he wanted free vote now. MT. Jacobs said he was one of the minority, and would exercise his priv ilege of voting
 AGAINST THE CHOICE OF THE MAJORITY,
 but as Democrat and man loyal to his constituents he would be obedient Co the orders of the State convention and bow to the will of the majority. Mir. Grady asked him, if at the Saratoga convention there had been word of discussion as to the unit rule. MT. Jacobs replied that there had not been; but it was because everybody had agreed to it in advance.
 JOHN KELLY AROSE AMID GREAT APPLAUSE.
 Cries wenb up for him to take the plat form but the chairman said that except by the vote of the convention 8 dele- gate could not leave his seat. MT. Kelly therefore spoke from his seat. His voice was very low, and it was difficult to hear him. He said that in the amendment before the convention was the foundation of Democracy. It was ques- | ton of whether majority of men could | control the minority. He did not regard the 1 instructions of any State binding on 8 na- | tional body. This higher power than State convention and he appealed to it to say whether the views of good Democrats could be stifed and their voices drowned or | whether they were to have vote like other 1 delegates. There were sixty-two counties in New York State, of which but ten or 1 twelve were Democratic. According to the argument of MT. Fellowes the great Demo- cratic counties Of New York-which would | elect Democratic President if an opportuni- | ty were given-would be disrranchised. That
 was the principle which was now presented and he appealed to the sencs and hberality
 of the convention in favor of MT. Grady's proposition. When the question itself was | bsfore the State convention there was no dis
 cassion. It was with great difficulty that he and his friends obtained entrance to that con- l vention. There was but one hope | for them; that was to appeal to the Dem | ocratic National committee to express
 their preferences. There was 8 preced ent | for Mr. Grady's motion and he hoped that | this convention would take it into considera- | ton. Suppose the Democratic counties were disfranchised. What would be the feeling of | the constituencies which had Democratic maiorities?
 MIR FELLowEs AGAIN SPOKE AGAINST | the Grady amendment There had beep
 he said, an extraordinary misoonception of 1 the issue involved. It did not look to stif1ing
 the voice or repressing the sentiment of any | delegate. The question was whether the State 1 of New York had right to say how the will | of her majority should be indicated. She 1 would not permit her seventy-tWo separate desires on any question before the conven-
 ton. She recognized the Democratic
 method of asoertaining 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~ Kelly how
 it was that they too had obtained the creden-
 tials which permitted them to be here at all. Kelly replied that
 MIR. FELLowEs REPRESENTED ONE DEMOCRATIC | PARTY
 in the city of New York and he (Kelly) sn-
 other. MT. Fellowes suggested that they | represented only different organizations in
 the Democratic party. MT. Kelly said that
 the gentleman's purpose now was to l ignore him (Kelly) and not allow him 1 8 vote in the convention. It was l against that he protested (cheers). | MT. Fellowes proceeded with his argument l All that the majority of the New York dele | gates desired to do was what their State had
 instructed them to do-express her senti-
 ments in 8 certain prescribed form. The
 convention should not take away that right.
 It was 8 right dear to the State of New
 York. If she were stripped of that right l she would feel degraded and dishonored. He