The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-08-29


D Committee, when all its members were preseE
t this rule was brought before the Commit
and rejected The Committee went on, dischar
/ ing their other business, and adjourned to
informal meeting in the morning, to enable Il
Chairman to make out the report and subrl
it to the Committee for its approval. At th
latter meeting, when some six or eight men
bers ofthe Committee opposed TO the rule wei
absent not having received notice of a calle
meeting for other business, and regarding tn
work as virtually finished the rule was agar
brought forward and adopted. In this dsre
spectacle manner was this rule brought befor
and adopted by the Convention. .5.
| BY it the votes of the minority in the dele
cations of Indiana, Vermont New York an,
Ohio, amounting to 271s or IS delegates op
posed to Mr.. Douglas, were thrown for him
while on the final ballot, at Baltimore. it gav
him votes in Massachusetts, 10; Pennsylvania
IL, New Jersey, 2l5 Maryland, 2l$; Virginia
3; North Carolina /; Arkansas, IL; Missouri
AZ; Tennessee, 8; and Kentucky, 3; in all Al
which he would not have received had the an
cient usages and rules Of the former Conventions
leaving the majority in each State to deterl,iint
low the vote Of the State should be cast, beer
adhered to. Yet the ink was hardly dry tha,
recorded the passage of the resolutions before
the very men who ela,iIored for its adopton
sought to violate it, and actdaiiy succeeded in
their cfI0rtsl -. ....r. .fa ... .a
In the case Of New Jersey, where the State
Convention recommended the delegates to vote
as unit, the Douglas delegates oyeTrued the
decision OF the President that by the term re.
cop'mcnded the Convention had proUiFe9 the
mode for casting the vote of the State, and al
lowed the two or three y ouglas delegates to
cast their individual votes.
WITHDRAWAL Of DELEGATES FROM THE
. .. . CHARLESTON CONVENTION. ..
The record of proceedings shows this with
drawal was done In sorrow and not in anger;
not for the purpose Of disunon, but to receive
instructions from their constituents. The
friends Of Mr.. Douglas at least, should not com :
plain. Words, however, are inadequate to ex-
press the bitterness Of their animosity. Had
not the Democracy of the South the same right
to state the terms upon which they would hold
fellowship tFith their sister States, as Douglas
had to dictate to them the platform Of their De
The Southern States gave their in
terpfetation of the Democratic creed, and por-
ton Of them insisted upon its recognition by
the Convention as the condition of their sup
port They were denied this, and withdrew
from the Convention. They at least did moth
ing more than pursue the course which Mr..
Douglas announced in his Dorr letter he would
pursue in the event Of his platform not being a.
1opted; for, il he could not stand on different
platform as candidate, it logically followed
that his position was tha of antagonsm and
both to platform and candidate
But, notwithstanding the withdrawal offif-
y one delegates, no nomination was made at
Charleston, and, after struggle of ten days. ah
adjournment was had to Baltimore, under the
ollowing resolutions:
Rcso7ve7, That when this Convention adjourn
t adjourn to re-assemblc at Baltimore oh Mon
lay, the 18th day Of June next, and that it
5 respectfully recommended to the Democratic
2arty OF the several States to make provision
or Supplying all vacancies in their respective
delegations to the Convention when it Shall re-
sscmble.
BALTIMORE CONVENTION.
The Convention met at Baltimore. Most OF
he States responded to the invitation above re-
,itcd, and their delegates presented their Gre
lentials, and asked admission into the Conven-
ion. How were they treated by the friends Of
Mr.; Douglas? .-.. .. .- -...r.
BOGUS DELEGATES--B MASSACHUSETTS, aa...
benjamin f. Hallett was regularly appoint
d dadelegate from Massachusetts to the National
the same Convention appointed X.
T. Chaltce as hisalternate. Owing to sickness,
Ir. llallett was uttablc to attend the Conyen
ION at Charleston, and in his absence, Mr.. Chat
ce, his alternate, took his place. At Baltimore,
lowever, Mr.. Hallctt was present, but the Con-
ontion actually turned him outj actually turn
d out the rcqu1ar dclegate and gave the scat to
he a7te,natei
MISSoubI.
The same course was adopted in regard to
he Eighth Electoral District Of Missouri. Mr.
ohnson B. Gardner, the regular delegate, wa;
tremendously ousted out Of his seat, and Mr.
l'Fallon, the contingent voted in.5 Heretofore
has always been considered that the alternate
cted only in the absence Of the principal but
his Convention gravely determined that the
rue test Tor admission into that Convention
in an affirmative answer to the oues-
ion, Are you for the nomination OF StephenA.
Douglas? .a. a.5} w @ .m
q -ta LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA. ~ daar
The next step was to vote out the regular
elegation from the State of Louisiana, wbo
'erc re appointed to Baltimore by the CohVen
on that originally appointed them, and also to
xclude the regular delegates from Alabama,
Tho were appointed by new Convention call
1 by the Democratic Committee of the State.
he history Of the cases is this. After the Sc
ession at Charleston, the Democratic Central
ommittce Of louisiana the only association in
lat, State having the power TO assemble the
Convention, called together the
tate Convention, representing every county in
lc State, and that Convention rc-appontcd the
inc delegates to Baltimore, A few irrespon,
Die men called another Convention, at which
ne Democracy Of the State were not represen-
ID. In the case of Alabama, the Democratic