The Carrollton sun. (City of Carrollton, Parish of Jefferson, La.) 185?-1???, 1860-07-28
POLITICAL.
Who is the Regular Nominees

tlonal Democratic convention at bal
timore. so fully confirms all the impair
tial accounts previously published on
the subject, that we give it to our read
ers for their perusal.
President Buchanan was serenaded
by crowd of dependents on the night
of the 9th inst, and is reported to have
said: "Neither Breckenridge nor Dou
glas got regular two-thirds nomina
ton. Hence any Democrat was at
liberty to vote for either, as he pre-
ferred."
If Mr.. buchanan is correct in his
statement, then we must wonder all our
Lifetime on what ground ne justifies his
| conduct in removing from office every
man who prefers to support Mr.. Doug
las. If neither of the candidates was
regularly nominated, and if it is the
right of any Democrat, as Democrat,
to support either, what kind of Dem
ocrat must that be who strikes off the
head of every man who dares, in MAX
ing his choice, to select Mr., Douglas ?
But leaving the consideration of this
| palpable inconsistency-which becomes
apparent with the mere statement of the
matter-we propose to show that even
President Of the United States may
make mistake, and that Mr.. Buchanan
gets wide of the facts when he says
that neither Mr.. Breckenridge nor
Douglas got regular two thirds nom
ination.''
In the first place, it may not be i'm
proper to say that a two-thirds vote
was not absolutely essential to regu-
lar nomination. The two-thirds rule
was first adopted in the Democratic
Convention of 1892. General Jackson
was then the nominee of the party with
out regard to any Convention-having
refused to allow his name to be used in
one. The rule was applied to the nom,
nation of Vice-P President, and under
it Mr.. Van Buren, became the nominee.
In 1886, the same rule was again adopt
ed, and so it was in 1910, 1874, 1S4S.
1852 and 1856. Each Convention
adopted it for itself; and the adoption
OF it in lS4O did not make it binding in
1874. 1t could be repealed, also, at
any moment, by bare majority of the
delegates-jj ust as it was first adopted
and it was in no sense law or rule of |
action given by the people to their SER
wants. The most that can be claimed |
for it is, that it was one of the usages
OF the Democratic party, acting
through its National Conventions. It
is perfectly absurd to say that it was
necessary to the validity OF the nopl-
nation. AS well might we say thai The
repeal of one of the rules of the House
OF Representatives would invahdate a
law enacted by that body.
But the rulo was adhered to, both at !
Charleston and at Baltimore, by the
Convention which nominated Mr.. Dou-
gias. AT Charleston Mr.. Douglas re-
ceived less than two-thirds Of all the
persons voting. He could not therefore
be declared the regular nominee with
out direct or indirect repeal of the
rule. AT Baltimore the whole number.
ot votes was two hundred and twelve
and e-half-twenty- one of this num-
Der being blank votes. Mr.. Douglas,
received, on the second ballot, one hun
lred aud eighty-one and one-half,
which ceStainly was two-thirds of the
whole number of votes.
But Mr.. Buchanan will perhaps say
hat ''two-thirds" means two-thirds of ,
he entire electoral college. The cleo
oral college embraces BOB votes. Two
birds of this would be 2O2 votes. t
)oes the rule mean that the candidate
must have 202 votes! We say, no. t
e '0aS ne0er SO construed, from 1882
Town to 1860. Mr.. Gushing did make {
dicesion which was so construed: but
It Baltimore he denied having made it, l
md after joining the seceders' Conven- {
ion, and becoming its President, he
declared that the rule, which had been !
dopted there, did not require two l
birds of the electoral college This is {
ot all. The only former occasion on L
hitch the question as to tho interpreter f
ion of tho rule was raised, was in 1913. (
andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was in +
ne chair. General Cass received two c
birds of all the votes cast, but less than v
co-thirdS of the electoral college. i
lr. Stevenson declared him nominated.
10 objection was offered at the time p
nd nobody, from that day to this, has h
yer asserted that Mr.. Cass was not n
'gulurly nominated. W
But the argument is not yet exhaust n
/. The fact is that Mr.. Douglas was W