Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1859-07-01
1)olitital.
SENATOR DOUGLAS LETTER.
WASHINGTON, June %, 1859.


Charleston Convention for the presiden-
tial nomination.
Before this question can be finally de-
termined, it will be necessary to under
stand distinctly upon what issues the
canvass is to be conducted
If, as have full faith they will, the
democratic party shall determine in the
presidential election of 1860 TO adhere
to the principles imbodied in the COM
promise measures Of 1850, ard ratified
by the people in the presidential cleo
ton of 1852, and reaffirmed in the Kan
sas-Nebraska act of 1854, and incorpo-
rated into the Cincinnati platform in
1856, as expounded by Mr.. Buchanan
in his letter accepting the nomination,
apd approved by the people in his cleo
sion-in that event, my friends will be
at liberty to. present my name to the
convention, if they see proper to do SO.
If, OH the contrary, it shall become
the policy Of the democratic party, which
! cannot anticipate, to repudiate these,
their time-honorcd principles, on which
we have achieved so many patriotic tri-
umphs; and, in lieu of them, the Con-
vention shall interpolate into the creed
of the party such new issues as the revi-
val of the African slave-trade, or Con-
grcssional slave -code for the Territories,
or the doctrine that the Constitution of
the United States either establishes or
prohibits slavery in the Territories be-
yond the power of the people legally to
control it as other property--it is due to
candor to say that, in such an event, |
could not accept the nomination if ten
dered to me.
Trusting that this answer will be
deemed sufficiently explicit, l am, very
respectfully, your friend,
S. A. DOUGLAS.
j. B. Dom, Esq, Dubuque, Iowa.
The Washington Constitution" of
the 25th ultimo, copies from the " Ma
tional Intelligencer," in which paper it
first appeared, the above letter of Judge
DoUGLAs, and says;
We publish to-day, a letter written by
Senator Douglas to a gentleman in Iowa,
in answer to an inquiry whether he would
permit his name to be presented by his
friends to the Charleston Convention fol
the presidential nomination The char.
acter of this letter, and the position
which Mr.. Douglas occupies before the
country, render it proper that we should
accompany its publication by some words
of comment.
Ordinarily the reply to an inquiry
such as that to which Mr. Douglas re-
spends would be guided by two control
ling circumstances: first, the effect on
the country and on the party which the
permission or refusal to use his name
would be likely to produce; and, second,
the inferior or personal question whether
it would accord with his own private in
terest or convenience to allow his name
to be used. Ia such cases every prom
inent member of party assumes that
the action of his party in convention will
be such as he will approve, and that the
principles it will adopt and the candi-
dates it will select will be the principles
and candidates which will deserve and
receive his hearty support; and hence it
is that the question of allowing his name
to be mentioned in connection with Office
is one of personal judgment in reference
to what he considers due to himself and
to the party. To prescribe terms to a
convention, either as to doctrines or can
didatcs, is to ignore the very purpose for
which conventions are held Conyen-
tons are composed Of the representative
of the party from all sections Of the
Union, and their purpose is to reconcile
conflicting opinions, and agree to a plat
form Of principles ON which all can stand
and to nominate candidates to sustain
those principles whom all can support.
Every reader of Judge Douglass letter
can easily determine how far he has de-
parted from that usual course.
He says, before he can determine
whether he will allow his name TO be
used as candidate, "it will be necessary
to understand distinctly on what issues
the canvass is 10 be conducted" The
history of the democratic party affords
no precedent for the assumption Of So
arrogant position by any aspirant for a
presidential nomination. Andrew jack
son did not impose any such condition
precedent to his acceptance of the nomi-
nation. Van Buren,, Polk, Cass, Pierce
and buchanan made no such condition
nor did Judge Douglas himself, on two
memorable occasions, in 1852 and 1856.
when be sought the democratic nomina-
tion for the presidency, follow the course
he now adopts. We seriously doubt that
even General Jackson, with all his power
and influence, and all the prestige that
surrounded his great name, would have
been tolerated by the democratic party
had be presumed to dictate the terms on
which he you'd consent TO be their nom
inee.
The Judge states that "if the demo-
cratic party shall determine in the presi-
dental election Of 1860 to adhere to the
principles imbodicd in the compromise
measures Of 1850, and ratified by the
people in the presidential election of
1882, and roafirpcd in the Kansas
Nebraska act Of 1854, and incorporated
into the Cincinnati platform Of 1856. as
exroundod by Mr.. Buchanan in bis letter
1crThng the nomination, and approved