Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-10

attempt by tho convention to almond
tho Constitution.
lit ia true that the convention has
not been orguniznd as IL should have
been, or as we would have had IL, but
we feel confident that We chose the
least Of the evils presented to us. IL is
now 43 years since tho rejection. OF the
work of the last Constitutional Con-
yention, and thsre is good reason to
fear that if we had not made the con-
oeHsions we did, few of us would live
to see another convention.
Counting all OF the Ropnblicans as
OF one party, the Democrats have but
two majority, as near an equal division
aa ia ever likely 10 occur again. On
most of the questions as to changes III
our organic law tho delegates ara not
likely to divide on party lines, and
believe that upon the return of the live
Union Republicans the work of the con-
vention will proceed with harmony
and end in substantial benefit to the
people of the State. y
MIR. BRApFoRn's STATEMENT.
Mr.. Bradford was reen at his office
Oh Saturday. Speaking on the matter
he said: "There arc too many persons
in the world who think more with
their mouths than with their brains.
Even Delaware is not exempt from
them. The propriety Of suhordinating
mouth to brain until the facts are
ascertained before expressing positive
and sometimes harsh opinions upon
matters of importance, docs not occur TO
them. Doubtless, to this class belong
most of the individuals who for the
last three or fosr days have been OK
claiming against what they have been
pleased to term the disgraceful sur
render of tho Republicans at Dover.
By way of answer to this seneless
clamor | have no hesitation in stating
to you the facts, IA l understand them,
which led to the organization last
Tuesday of the Constitutional Conven-
tion with a membership OF l6 Demo.
Gratis and IA Republicans. There were
90 delegates whose title was not ques-
toned and of them nine were Republi-
cans and Ii were Democrats. -Four OF
the Republicans were elected from New
| Castle county and five from Sussex.
Six of the Democrats were elected from
| New Castle county and five from Sus
sex. Neither the 10 Union Republi.
| cans claiming to have been elected
from Kent nor the 10 Democrats claim
ing TO have been elected from the samt
county had proper credentials of theii
election. They had no prima facit
| title to seats and under the well-settleC
rules of parliamentary law applicabl,
to such deliberative assembly as
| Constitutional Convention had no right
to participate in the organization of thu
convention. gid
1.-The convention was to consist of 81
members, and without the presence o
quorum it could, not act. A quorum
is majority Of the whole number ant
therefore had 10 consi6t of at least II
members. But aside from the claim
ants from Kent, who for the reasol
already stated could take no part il
the organization ut the convention
neither tho Republicans nor the Demo
Gratis had enough delegates to consti
tute quorum; the Republicans havinI
only nine and the Democrats only l
delegates. Hence no convention coul,
be properly organize unless the Re
publjcans and Democrats from Ne,
Castle and Sussex should meet togethe
for that purpose. But If 80 met tn
Democrats would have had majorit
of the quorum and could have outvote
the Republicans upon any propositio
coming before the convention, whethe
it related to the seating of the !
Democratic claimants from Kent or an
other subject 1t was therefore th
purpose of the Republicans, befor
meeting in convention with the Demo
Gratis, to secure such pledges from tn
latter as would warrant them in tasin
part in the organization OF the convor
tion rather than in preventing th
holding of it,
|, 1.-The bone OF contention was til
seating OF delegates from Kent. III
Union Republican claimants from tina
, county asserted that they had bee
fairly elected and that 1t was OWN
solely TO the lawless action Of the boar
, OF canvass that they had not receive
! proper certificates OF election. I'll
, Democratic claimants from that count
asserted that, while the Union Republ
can claimants mad received pluralit
/ OF the vote actually cast, such plural
/ had been obtained through briber
fraud and violence on the part Of tho
: political opponents TO such an extel
i, as vitiated the result in number
n election districts, and that cons
4 quently the Democratic candidates hi
. been elected.
! "There was intense feeling upon til
i subject in Dover when 1 arrived the
g last Monday evening. While, as is W.
8 known, l have no sympathy whatev
o with the Union Republican party,
If nevertheless believed and now belle
v that its candidates in Kent county r
q ceived plurality. and that the boa
d of canvass was bound by law to certi
n that plurality In their favor aud tn
@ clothe them with prima facie title
al seats in the convention. Thess vie,
10 | believe were fully shared by my II
Q publican associates and We determine
it TO do the best we could by the Uni
J. Republican claimants. Such was o
d indignation at the grossly unlawf
action of tho board of canvass in Ke
1t that all or large majority of us we
/. in favor of refusing to go into conve
}. tion with the Democrats unless Sill
/, stantial concessions were made
them. Yet we know that if we did n
10 90 into the convention either no Co
it stitution would be framed by the Den
Of Gratis or that Constitution might
a framed and declared operative by The
lc without its submission for popuI
approval. We further knew that
,e was impracticable for the nine
IN publicans to meet in a separate h
10 and organize convention by admitti
q to seats the 10 Union Republicans Fl,
t. Kent, Such course was advised
!, some Of the Union Republicans; but
n followed it could never have result
in the framing and adoption of n
IN Constitution. Tho warrants of t
IS presiding officer would not have be