Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1853-01-08
RALEIGH, SATURDAY, JAN. 8, 1858.
THE SENATORSHTP.

its character. renders it our duty to submit some
! remarks by way of reply.
Our Correspondent admits that Mr.. Dobbin re-
celVed, IN caucus, majority of the whole Demo
cratic representation III the General Assembly, and
that afterwards in accordance with custom in such
cases, his nomination was unanimously agreed to
but he then states that, i'll his opinion, sufficient
number to have elected ought to have been pres
ent, and the two-thirds rule ought to have been
adopted. There were but sixty-cight members,
he says in attendance and these, he contends, had
no right to attempt to bind the party. But whose
fault was 1t that the meeting was not full Where
was Gen. Saunders Why did not he and others
come forward and unite in the effort with these
slxty-elght to concentrate and harmonic? If
| the meeting which held was not full enough
to take such action as would bind the party, who,
we repeat, is to blame for it 2 Why, the absence
of these gentlemen, which was no doubt inten-
lonal, produced the very result which our Cor
respondent alludes to and now we are told that
another result, thus rendered impossible 6y them,
not having been arrived at, they are not responsible
for the dsorganzaton and the failure to elect which
ensued.
That point having been disposed of, we proceed
to the next which is, that a sufficient number to
elect ought to have been present. Our Correspon-
dent admits that sufficient number would have
been, necessarily the whole number but how
could it have been reasonably expected that the
whole number would thus meet One, at least,
of the members confined at the time to his
room by sickness and others of them were op-
posed, principle, to going into caucus, though
they stood ready to support the nominee. To re-
quire the uhole number of members in such case !
is plainly to require what is unreasonable and to
refuse under such circumstances, sustain the ac-
ton of the party, thus taken by sixty-eight out
of eighty six, is to manifest disposition to give
up organization and to rely upon members OF the
opposite party to make the election.
But, says our Correspondent, the two-thirds rule
ought to have been adopted. Wherefore What
is there between case Of this sort and
that of a National Convention In National
Convention States represented which never have
voted and never vote for Democratic candi- fl
date for President; and if the majority rule pre-
vailed, these minority States, as they are called,
might combine and nominate the candidate So {
,wothirds of the votes of all the States are requr-
doubted majority Of Democratic States The two S
birds rule, therefore, in Convention of this char
acter is but another for the majority rule for fe
he objeci of it is in the MAN, to secure that ma al
ority-not Of Wing States, but of Democratic
The States are equal in the Convention but not at c
ne ballot box, for State which votes for the can b
lidate in Convention may not be able to do so at
he polls; but not so with members of the same le
,arty assembled in caucus, for all of those who st
ote in caucus can do SO in open House. They are II
quals in strength from first to last, and there is,
therefore,, similarity between a caucus of this &c
ind and National Convention. So this obiec- IT,
ion of Correspondent also falls to the ground OF
The g Democratic party at Baltimore" adopted al
his twothrds rule not for the party in the States
ut Il rule to be observed in National CoDven- al
IONS It's rule which peculiarly belongs to such hi
odies and doubt if it ever entered the heads at
# any considerable number in the last or former or
National Conventions to attempt to lay down as OF
rule for the party in the States. The rule was us
ot imperative the Democrats in the late sh
Assembly. They adopted the majority rule, which II
;, as we have shown, among equals the same rule wi
Thich is substantially reached in National Conven- &C
ons; and they gave to ther nominee more than ev
majority of the entire Democratic representation gr
l the two Houses. pr
Our Correspondent says all Gen. Saunders asked
as "f fair play" We were present at the caucus, his
nd we heard the feelings and opinions of men,
ers, during the session, frankly expressed both in
nd out of caucus and we know, so far as we ~
card and saw, that fair play extended to W
en- Saunders. 1t was known that, in accordance o|
it'll his wish, his name was not before the iils
ucus and hence the vote cast for him was quite Vi
nall. But hold that no man, elected as a 'ii'
'emocrat, has right, Democrat, to absent SUI
mself from meetings Of his party with the view us
excepting to and opposing the action of such tns
lettings. The evidence of premeditated injustice
ust be very strong if not conclusive to Justify ao
ch course: and if any evidence of such inius Pre-
existed, or known to either Gen. Saunders pie
r. Love, Mr.. Gotten, Mr. Christmas or Mr.. Wat
m, the public have yet to hear of it. No, if fair g
ay" was refused it was refused to Mr.. Dobbin. -
no was the regular nominee of his party and e..
no might have been elected by cordial union of D.
re whole party upon him. so. -.
II these gentlemen, who thus stood out against
majority of the party had exerted themselves to STA
tn fIill i ;e.I..- l., ,