The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1890-08-20

view with Chairman Hoyt---His
Committee will Hold on...What he
Says of the Conventions Action.
TiIIman Favored the Compromise
...It Would Have Gone Through
but for Misunderstanding.
Greenpille Ne,os.
To the Democracy of South Carolina:
We undersigned delegates from the counties
of Sumter, Beaufort, Richland, Charleston
and Georgetown to the Convention of the
Democratic party which assembled in Colum-
bia on August 18th, $780, hereby announce to
our fellow Democrats the reasons which
compelled our withdrawal from the body. -,
The Convention assembled under the call
of the State Executive Committee "for the
sole and exclusive purpose OF determining
whether delegates to the State Nominating
Convention to be held on the 10Th OF Septem-
mary election to be held on a certain day
throughout the State and for no other purpose
whatsoever"
The Convention after its organization, in
stead OF transacting the business for which it
had been summoned, proceeded to take action
looking TO the adoption OF new constitution
for the party In this State, making many i'm
Against this action We made such argu-
ment as was. possible in the limited time
allowed for debate by the majority of the
general rules Of party government as laio
down by so distinguished parliamentarian
as the Hon. j. G. Carlisle, late Speaker Of the
Honse of Representatives OF the United
State: when convention Is called for q
limited by the terms Of the call ftself;" that
ait can have no general authority to bind the
party by Its action on any other subject for
ply delegated to do particular thing
We pointed out that this general rule as to
party conventions was In exact accordance
with the decisions OF our State courts In the
Nf % Nupar NJ q
of the people called under an act of the Legis-
lature for specific purpose.
In the celebrated case OF McCrady VS.. Hunt,
desded by the OF
vention assemb bling under the constitution Is
only the people for the purposes for which 1t
their act is void unless it is submitted to the
people to be affirmed by them. 1t Is true the
Legislature can not limit the Convention, but
II the people elect them for the purpose OF
the act Of the Legislature, the act would de-
fine their powers for the people elect in refer
ence to that and nothing else."
Judge David johnson concurred in this
lon uses these words Certainly the Conven-
tion was nor the people for any other purpose
that f.r which the people voted and delegated
1See0 To nslude that the people intended to in
vest the Con nvention with their authority for
any other purpose than the purpose sPeoi-
fled
would be plain usurpation Of the power Of the
people,"
with all the earnestneSs in our power to the
majority, as fellow Democrats, not to force us
into position where we would be compelled,
in view Of the limited authority conferred
upon us by our constituents, to refrain from
participation in further proceedings OF the
Convention.
Notwithstanding the appeals, usurping
powers not delegated to them, and in open
violation Of the law governing the subject.
the majority proceeded, under the operation
OF the prev ious question, to take action upon
the adoption of new constitution for the
Democratic party OF the State.
We therefore withdrew from the body, be-
ing unwilling to allow the Democrats whom
we represented to be bound by It's fur ther
action or to be committed to q precedent 80