5 vention which assembles once in four years, and without hesitation carry into effect its decrees. Without stopping to show how much such a principle is in conflict with the genius of our Government, and how subversive it is of everything valuable in our institutions, I will, for the sake of argument, grant the principle, and yet contend that the particular convention referred to is entitled to no such respect. To establish this position I will not inquire how many of the members of that convention were self-constituted, claiming- to be representatives of the people, yet having no constituents; but I discredit their proceedings with the fact (which cannot be controverted) that a very large majority of them were instructed by their constitu- -ents to nominate Mr. Van Buren as a candidate for the Presidency, and that when they assembled one of their first acts was to adopt a rule which required a vote of two-thirds of the convention to make a nomination. The object of this rule was to prevent the nomination of Mr. Van Buren, and it produced that result. That object being accomplished, the convention proceeded to nominate Mr. Polk, who had never, so far as I know, been thought of or mentioned by any man, woman, or child in America, as a candidate for that high office. Upon what ground can the respect of a Democratic Congress be claimed for the proceedings of a convention which, thus trampled under foot the. expressed will of the party which it professed to represent? Need 1 tell this Democratic House of Representatives that this was a palpable violation of a fundamental principle of Democracy? Is it not the doctrine of Democracy that the will of the people ought always to control ? Is it not the doctrine of Democracy that the voice of the people is the supreme law ? And was not this a palpable substitution of the will of a few—interested, intriguing politicians—for the will of the people? It may be urged, in answer to these interrogatories, that circumstances had occurred after the appointment of the members of that -convention which absolved them from their instructions^,nd authorized them to exercise a discretion in regard to the selection of a candidate. I meet this argument by contending that circumstances now exist which absolve the Democratic members of this House from any obligation which may have been supposed to exist, requiring them to obey the dictates of the Baltimore convention. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Thompson,] himself a Democrat, has informed us that the resolution relating to the tariff was adopted when one-third of the members of that convention had left their homes, without a moment of deliberation or a word of debate; and hence he deduces the conclusion that it ought not to be regarded as binding upon Congress. Is it thus that the great interests of this Republic are to be determined ? Is it not worse than ridiculous—is it not contemptible, in view of such facts, to refer to the proceedings of that convention as an argument for passing the bill now before this committee? Mr. Chairman, Congress has already decided that the proceedings of that convention are entitled to nothing but contempt and disregard. I refer to the action of Congress upon the Oregon question. The Baltimore convention passed a resolution on that subject, affirming that our title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable, and that the same ought to be re-occupied or re-annexed—I speak from memory, and am not certaia which word was employed. When that question was under consideratioa ■in the Senate, a distinguished democratic Senator, [Mr. Haywood, of North
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=