Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-07-08

ong established usages Of the party We do not I
think that the unit rule trick Of which one Of Mr.
DoUo1As Illinois friends boasted is in acco;dance
with the long established usages of the party' BY
means Of which rule the anti-D0UGIAs vote 10 New
York Ohio Indiana, and other Of the Northsrn and
Northwestern States was forced to be east for him
Ia Pennsylvania and other States where his friends
were in minority, they were nevertheless permit
ted to cast their full vote for him. If the fifteen votes
which were against Mr. DoUcLAs in New York, but
which were cast for him under this rule every bal
lot had been permitted 20 vote against him. the change
in this one State would have made difference Of
thirty as between him and any other that they
would have voted for. Again it is not in concord
auce with the long established usages of the party
TO turn out of the convention members who were
opposed to Mr. DOUGLAS, and admit men who favor
ed his nomination. Mr. HALLET, the author of the
Cincinnati Platform was appointed a delegate His
seat was contested at Charleston by Mr. DoHERrY
we believe that is the name. The wife of Mr.. HAL
was lying on her death bed. Being unable to
attend at Charleston, he made out in his own hand
writing the papers establishing his right 70 his seat
and sent them to Charleston by his substitute, Mr.
CHAFFEE. The Convention at Charleston upon these
papers rejected Mr. DoHERrY and admitted AFR. CHAR
FEE Mr.. HALLEr substitute Before the meeting at
Baltimore Mr., HALLET's wife died and he went to
Baltimore and took his seat member of the
Convention. BE was opposed to Mr. DOUGLAS be-
cause he believed that Mr.. DOUGLAS was endeavoFr
ing to iuterpolate Squatter Sovereignty into the
Cincinnati Platform which he, Mr.. HAJ.Er had
written Mr.. CHAFFEE during his sojourn at Charles
ton had welded himself TO the DoUGIAs men. When
Mr.. HAL1ET took his seat at Baltimore, Mr. CuAFFEE
the substitute of Mr.. HAIIET, claimed the scat and
the DOUGLAS men turned the author Of the Cincin-
matt Platform out and let his substitute Mr.. CHAFFEE
in. There was an exactly similar case from Mis-
souri,, where the ant-DoUGLks principal, GARDY
was turned out and the DoUeLAs alternate, O'FAIAON
was admitted Such hghhanded violations of the
right were of themselves sufficient cause for the
withdrawal of every honorable man from the Con-
vention At the Charleston Convention Col. JOHN
K HOWARD was member as the alternate of Gen
WM. A. QUARIEs, who was detained at home by the
fatal illness of his little child. Gen. QUARLEs attend
ed at Baltimore and took his seat as one Of the
principal delegates from the State at large. What
would the people of Tennessee have thought of Col
HOWARD if he had come forward and claimed the
seatof Gen. QUARLES because he had been detained
at home about the bedside of his dying child!
What would Col Howard have thought of himself
if he had made such a claim What would the
people Of Tennessee have thought of Convention
that would have given the seat of Gen. QUARLEs to
Col. HOWARD under such circumstances Every
one answers that every delegate from Tennes-
see who would mot withdraw, Secede from such a
convention would be unfit to represent the true De-
ed to have made an application of the kind, and he
scorned to stay in convention that granted such
application. 1t was not in concordance with the
long established usages of the party" to refuse to
admit lifelong Democrats as delegates, and admit
such men as LEWIS E. PARSONS, Of Ala ,c,o necer IA.
his iife Uoted Democratic ticket, but whose talents
and energies have been used to the utmost in the
past to defeat the Democracy There was much,
too much in the Douglas convention that not in
Concordance with the long established usages of the
party. But passing by this, did he get twothirds
Of the whole number of the delegatess Mr. DoUGI.As
says he did. Let US see.
The president of the convention determined at
Charleston a question of privilege, raised by Mr..
HOWARD that it required twothirds of the electoral
vote (2O2,) in favor of any one candidate to make
eision of the chair. The whole vote was SO3
There were two ballots at baltimore, which were
as follows:
LIST Ballot-FOr Douglass. .....l732
All others, 49,. 174 Total. l9l
This was after the withdrawal of the President
of the convention and the other delegates who Sees
dei. Mr.. ToDD, the then presiding officer, DOUGLAS
man, announced the vote, and declared that, no
haUiag recsired 2O2 Uotes, the number necessary TO
choice, there lvqs no nomination. There was then
second ballot and the vote stood:
I'd BaIlot-For Douglas, 1871
All others 49, Is Total. 1914
No one yet having received POP votes the DOUGLAS
presiding officer declared that there was nomina
ton. Then it was that resolution passed
without call of tie vote by States, declaring that
Mr.. DOUGLAS having received two-thifds of all the
votes east, not all the Convention, was unanimously
nominated ftwo-thirds of those cast nominated him,
he was nominated on the first ballot What necessi
ty for second Would it not have been in better taste
to have left the unanimously " out of the resOlu-
ton and let the vote upon it show whether or motif
was unanimously passed. But if the resolution had
received every vote that acting with and felt
bound by the action of the Convention, it would not
have received the necessary two-thirds. The full
vote participating in the Convention, as shown by
the second ballot, was only 1914. Judge DOUGLAS
assumption that he received more than twO-thirds
of the whole number of delegates, POP, cannot be
sustained by counting the vote from Delaware and
two and a half from Kentucky, which remained,
but refused to participate in any of the proceedings
or to be bound by its action. This assumption is
lamentably week when the character of portion of
that 1914 votes is understood. Tennessee on that
ballot east three votes for Mr.. DOUGLAS when there
were only three delegates in the Convention from
Tennessee each delegate being entitled to only one
half vote under the rules and usages Of the Con-
vention or the three delegates and onehaf votes
Massachusetts, cast ten votes in the same way
when she was only entitled to five; Minnesota cast
four when she was only entitled to p; Vermont five
when she was only entitled to a. Deduct Il from
five from Massachusetts,, l! from Min
nesota, from Vermont, total 81 and deduct that
from 1911 and we have only 1S6 the total vote Of
the convention But that is still further be reduced
by deducting nine for the bogus delegates from Al
ALBANIA six for those from Louisiana, one from Ar
kansas, one half from Massachusetts, and ! from
Missouri; total II, which deducted from lS4 leaves
lG7. Then deduct still further from this 167 the
twenty-five or thirty votes from New York and 9TH
er States that were against Mr.. DOUGLAS, but which
were forced to be cast for him under tie united
rule trick" and Mr.. DOUGLAS instead of having
twothirds of the electoral votes in the convention,
lad less than one-half Of them So much for the
regularity Of Mr.. DOUGLAS nomination.
The Mexican War.
MUsrANG, the celebrated Mexican correspondent
of the New Orleans Delta, writing home during the
Mexican war and referring to those who had made
anti-war and anti-national speeches in Congress,
said
II they hsd Mexican MuSke their snou ders they could
assist the Mexc2ns much they
will have done by their speeches. In the Of God will the
politicians OF country gambling Presi
iency upon the blood Of counymen Our army breads
danger do they fear to die in defence country but
hey do dislike to be sacrificed the unhoy ambon Of aspiring
politicians and political nave Is no way by which
friends put stop uupatotc conduct Of poll
H ~ HN