The PRESIDENT: The Chair decides that if it relates to the organization, it is in order.

Mr. FISHER took the Secretary's stand, and was about to read the communication, when

Mr. JOHN COCHRAN, of New York, claimed to be heard one moment before the letter was read.

Mr. FISHER. That is the very issue involved.

· Mr. COCHRAN. I claim to have the floor, and shall retain it until I am properly interrupted. I rise to a question of order. The resolution must be offered before the communication is read, otherwise there is no question before the Convention.

Mr. LAWRENCE, of Louisiana, rose to a point of order. The gentleman from New York has no right to address the Convention.

Mr. FISHER. The gentleman is not properly a member of this body. Mr. COCHRAN. I rise to a point of order, and shall not yield the floor. The gentleman from Virginia claims that he has a resolution to offer. It is out of order to read a communication when no motion is before the House.

The CHAIR. The Chair decided that if the communication refers strictly to the organization, it can be read.

Mr. PUGH, of Ohio. The proper way of the gentleman from Virginia will be to communicate to the Chair, or to the Convention, the substance of the letter; then we shall see to what business it relates.

Mr. FISHER. I have been requested to read the communication, and I shall do so. [Mr. F. proceeded to the Clerk's stand and attempted to read the communication.]

The CHAIR. Before the letter is read, the Chair inquires of the gentleman whether it is a communication from a State?

Mr. FISHER. It is from a Delegatton claiming a seat here.

Mr. COCHRAN. I rise to a point of order. I had been awarded the floor, and had not yielded it. I claim, therefore, that the gentleman from Virginia is out of order.

Mr. FISHER. The State of Virginia is not responsible for my conduct. I am responsible alone for my own acts, and I stand here on the right to the floor, awarded me by the Chair.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is out of order. The Chair decides that the communication, being only from a contesting Delegation not now recognized by the Convention, is out of order. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Cochran) has been awarded the floor.

Mr. FISHER. The Delegates from whom this communication comes are representatives of the State of New York. They claim it as a right to be heard

The CHAIR-[rapping to order.] The gentleman from Virginia has been ruled out of order, and I call upon the Convention to support the Chair.

Mr. FISHER. I have the floor, and I do not mean to be unfairly ruled out of order. [Shouts of "Order! order!"]

Mr. JOHN COCHRAN. I move, Mr. President, that the rules of the last National Convention be adopted as the rules to govern this body.

Mr. L. P. WALKER, of Alabama, rose to address the Convention.

The CHAIR. Debate is out of order, unless some question is before the Convention. Does the gentleman from Alabama make any motion?

Mr. WALKER. I desire to speak.

Mr. WALKER. I appeal from the decision of the Chair by which I am ruled out of order, and that I have a right to do.

The CHAIR. The gentleman has a right to appeal. The question will be, shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. WALKER. I desire to be heard-[Cries of "Question! question!"'] The CHAIR. Nothing is in order until the question on the appeal is decided.

Mr. CLARK, of Mississippi, in a loud tone of voice, claimed the right of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Walker) to be heard on the appeal he had taken from the decision of the Chair.

The CHAIR. If the Convention will come to order, the Chair will state the question before it.

Mr. WALKER. If the Chair will refrain from entering into a conference with me, and will allow me to speak for a few moments, he will then himself understand what is the question to which I desire to speak.

The CHAIR. The Chair has no desire to prevent the gentleman from being heard, unless the Convention itself shall decline to hear him. He is in order if speaking on the appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. WALKER. The question properly before the Convention is, whether the communication presented by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Fisher) shall be read. It is simply a parliamentary rule that any gentleman who offers to a body like this a respectful paper, has the right to demand that it be read. The gentleman from Virginia has presented a communication relating directly to the organization of this Convention, from a State Delegation claiming the right of a seat here. It must be entertained at once, if the right of the contesting delegation is to be respected at all. I hold that the question on the reading of the communication is before the House, and as I rose to speak to that question, I hold that the decision of the Chair ruling me out of order is incorrect.

The CHAIR. The question before the Convention is, shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?

The Chair was sustained by a vote almost unanimous.

The CHAIR. The ayes have it, and the decision of the Chair is sustained. Mr. FISHER. I now offer the resolution which I purported to offer in connection with the communication which I desired to read.

The CHAIR. A question is already pending. It is the motion of the gentleman from New York, that the rules of the last National Convention be adopted as the rules to govern the present Convention.

The motion was unanimously adopted.

Mr. FISHER. I now ask to read the communication and the resolution which I purport to offer in connection therewith.

The CHAIR. It has already been decided that this subject is not in order. The decision of the Chair in that respect, has been sustained by the voice of the Convention. The Chair is therefore compelle i to rule the gentleman from Virginia again out of order.

Mr. GEO. W. McCook, of Ohio, offered the following:

Resolved, That a Committee of one from each State be selected by the respective delegations, whose duty it shall be to select permanent officers of the Convention.

Mr. FISHER. I move to amend this resolution, and I presume my right to do so will not be disputed.

The CHAIR. An amendment will be in order if it is pertinent to the question before the Convention.

Mr. BARKSDALE, of Mississippi, obtained the floor, and moved the following as a substitute for Mr. McCook's resolution :

Resolved, That a Committee on Credentials be appointed by the several delegations respectively, to be composed of one from each State in which there is no disputed delegation, whose duty it shall be to report to the Convention the Delegates that are entitled to seats on this floor.

Mr. RICHARDSON said: Mr. President-I hope my friend accept the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi. troversy in the State which I represent upon this floor. Convention, and I want the country, to see what are its merits.

from Ohio will
There is a con-
Sir, I want the
I shrink from

no investigation, and when the Convention comes to see the character of the contest, they will be amazed at what small things contests can be raised about. It is humiliating to me, at this period of my life, to have a contest of this matter of my Democracy with such opponents as those who are contesting my seat here. I am anxious that the Convention shall have this matter before them, without one word or any action from me, and decide it. With that decision I am sure I shall be satisfied.

Mr. JOHN COCHRAN, of New York, rose to speak, but was interrupted by Mr. LAWRENCE, of Louisiana, who rose to a point of order. No gentlemen from New York had yet been admitted as regular Delegates by the voice of the Convention, and until that question had been decided, no person had a right to be heard from that State.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Louisiana by what right he himself holds a seat on this floor?

Mr. LAWRENCE. As a Delegate from the State of Louisiana, whose seat is not contested.

Mr. COCHRAN. And, Sir, by the same right, as Delegates from the State of New York, do we hold our seats here on this floor.

Mr. LAWRENCE. It is well known that there are two sets of Delegates from the State of New York, both claiming a right to seats in this Convention. One of those delegations is headed by Mayor Wood, the representative man of the New York Democracy. The other, by Mr. Dean Richmond, an equally worthy gentleman and reliable Democrat. I hold that-

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is not in order. The Chair has already decided that all discussion is out of order upon this question until the Convention shall have been permanently organized.

Mr. W. S. BARRY, of Mississippi, asked that the roll be called. The Convention could not proceed with any regularity until it is ascertained who are and who are not Delegates.

Mr. COCHRAN obtained the floor. He said: Mr. Chairman-I was well pleased to hear the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois, respecting the resolution offe ed by the gentleman from Mississippi. The sentiments expressed by him are ours, and the amendment offered meets the unqualified approbation of the Delegates from New York. We are the sole representatives of the regular and orthodox Democracy of that State, but while maintaining that position, we are not actuated by such feelings as to pretend that there may be no controversy respecting our claims. Whether the gentlemen who contest our seats come with claims of greater or less magnitude, we have no objection that every man shall be heard in his own behalf. of New York have not been educated in that school of ethics or politics to claim that we only can be right, or to desire to sit in adjudication on our own case. If the Convention should offer to us to be judges in our own case, we would decline it as men and as gentlemen, but more particularly as men clothed with the robes of regularity, and as representatives of the Democracy of the great State of New York. Wishing to submit ourselves to the decision of the Convention, we are ready to agree in the adoption of the proposed amendment.

We

Mr. PUGH, of Ohio, desired that the resolution should set forth the States from which there are supposed to be contested seats.

Mr. BARKSDALE then modified his substitute so as to provide for the appointment of a Committee on permanent organization-one from each State (except in New York and Illinois.) to be selected by the Delegates from each State.

Mr. McCook. I accept the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, with the understanding that it is to be confined to the Delegates whose seats are contested entirely. If it is so modified, I will accept it.

There is then no objection to it, for we come here as Democrats whose Conventions have always excluded from their Committees the States whose seats are contested.

Mr. W. S. BARRY, of Mississippi, suggested that the resolution be so framed as to create a Committee on the contested seats only. If a general Committee on credentials is formed, it may be five days before they report.

The resolution of Mr. McCook, as proposed to be amended by Mr. Barksdale, was then read.

Mr. MATHEWS, of Mississippi, was about to offer a resolution as a substi tute for the original resolution and the amendment, when

Mr. JOHN COCHRAN rose to a point of order. The original resolution related to a permanent organization of this Convention. The proposed amendment had reference to certain seats alleged to be contested, and was not pertinent to the original motion.

Mr. J. B. CLARK, of Missouri, obtained the floor. He held that the amendment was not pertinent to the original resolution. The National Committee admit to the floor of the Convention such Delegates from the several States as are entitled to seats. Every gentleman here is, therefore, to be regarded as a Delegate. He therefore moved the previous question, with a view of bringing the Convention to a vote on the original resolution.

The CHAIR inquired, before putting the motion for the previous question, whether the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. McCook) had accepted the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. McCook. The amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi was not modified in accordance with my suggestion, and, therefore, I did not accept it. While I am in favor, with him, of a Committee on Contested Seats, I am anxious that the question on organization should be disembarrassed of this issue. Mr. RICHARDSON, of Illinois, argued that the original resolution contem-. plated a permanent organization. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi contemplated a Committee on Contested Seats, but if adopted, would really exclude the two great States of New York and Illinois from a representation or the Committee on Organization. To this he objected.

Judge MEEK, of Alabama, raised the point of order, that none of the resolutions are in order until the roll of Delegates has been called, in order that it may be ascertained who are the representatives properly present in the Convention.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi varies the proposition from its original form. The original had reference only to the Committee upon Credentials. The gentleman from Ohio proposes to raise a Committee upon Organization. The gentleman from Mississippi moves to amend by excluding the two States in which there is said to be a contest. From that Committee ought to be excluded only the State that is called up. There is no reason why the State of Illinois and the State of New York should be excluded from the Committee on Organization. There may be, and there are reasons which I acknowledge to be satisfactory to me, why I should not sit in the contested case of Illinois. But there is no reason why a member of our Delegation should not sit in the contested case of New York. But when you come to pluralities, you not only take us from the Committees but strike down the power of the two States in this Convention. Mr. BARKSDALE desired to correct a misapprehension of some Delegates. He did not desire to discuss the merits of any contested seat, but he referred to the Cincinnati Convention, at which no State from which there were contestants was admitted to a representation on the Committee on Permanent Organization.

Mr. CRAIG, of Missouri, desired to correct the gentleman from Mississippi. The contested seat from that State was decided at Cincinnati before the per

manent organization, and the Missouri Delegates were fully represented on the. Committee.

Mr. CESSNA, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend by striking out all after the enacting clause in the original resolutions, and inserting as follows:

Resolved, That there now shall be appointed two Committees; each to consist of one member from each State, to be selected by the respective delegations thereof; one a Committee on Permanent Organization, and the other on Credentials; and that in determining the controversy in regard to the disputed seats of the Illinois Delegation, the members of the Committee on Credentials of that State shall not be permitted to vote thereon, and in determining the controversy from the State of New York, the members of the Committee on Credentials from that State shall not be permitted to vote.

Mr. CESSNA moved the previous question, which being ordered, the vote was taken upon the above substitute by States, and the same was adopted, as follows:

Mr. FISHER. We protest against the vote of the State of New York being received and counted here.

The CHAIR. The protest is not now in order.

Mr. FISHER. We desire to enter it on the journal.

The original resolution, as amended, was then adopted.

Mr. CESSNA moved to reconsider the vote, and to lay the motion on the table. Agreed to.

Mr. MATHEWS, of Mississippi, offered the following:

Resolved, That the Delegates from the States of New York and Illinois, whose seats are contested, be requested not to participate in the proceedings of this body, until the Committee on Credentials shall have determined and reported to the Convention, which of said contestants are entitled to seats. Mr. CLARK, of Missouri, raised the point of order that a similar motion had been offered, and the Convention had virtually rejected it.

The CHAIR. The point of order is not well taken.

Mr. CESSNA moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. CLARK, of Mississippi, objected to the delegations from New York voting on this question, on the ground that they are parties in interest. The vote to lay the resolution on the table was then demanded by States, and resulted as follows:

So the resolution was laid on the table.

The roll of States was then called, and the following Committees were appointed: