The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-08-28

the proposition that his mere ipse dicit had the
power to bind the delegates who did not dissent,
even in the face of their declaration that they
would not vote, We now proceed 70 show that no
opportunity was afforded to any delegate to OBJECT
to the passage of the resolution The exit act of
the proceedings which we have heretofore quoted,
shows that debate upon this resolution was decided
to be out of order; and under this rulings Mr. Jones,
of Pennsylvania, who rose to enter his dissent,
was unceremoniously gagged. Having thus closed
their mouths this committee contends, that because
they did not then speak they must be counted as
having voted for the resolution.
By no rule of justice or of right can the l43
votes given for Mr. Breckenridge and Mr. Guthrie
be counted as having been cast for the resolution
declaring Mr. Douglas the Notwithstanding
steadily, through repeated ballots, voted against
Mr. Douglas, they were not allowed to object to
the resolution when it was offered, nor even given
the opportunity of voting against it. Here are the
proceedings at this stage:
"Mr Clarke then moved to declare Stephen A.
Douglas the Democratic nominee for the Presidency.
[Applause] -u ..-.
"Mr Hoge of Virginia, offered a resolution to
that effect, which was read.
"The resolution declaring S. A. Douglas the
unanimous choice of the Convention for the Presi-
dency was adopted by shout of ayes and cheers,
which lasted considerable time.
"The band Of the Keystone Club appeared in
the gallery and struck up tune, which was
greeted with renewed cheers.
"The President (Col Todd) declared Stephen
A. Douglas of Illinois, the unanimous choice of
the Democracy of the United States as their
candidate for the Presidency. Loud cheers."]
The cote IN favor Of the resolution scas alone
taken ? The Negative cote acas not pat to the
Contention!
But as if still further to demonstrate that the
eighteen delegates from Kentucky, Delaware and
Missouri, took no part at all in the proceedings,
we call attention to the vote for Vice President,
achem they again refused to cote!
SEVEN VOTES FROM GEORGIA AND ARKANSAS
COUNTED IN DEFIANCE OF THE UNIT RULE
! GEORGIA
But the nine votes counted for the Is delegates
who refused to vote, with the 143 votes cast for
Messrs Breckenridge and Guthrie added to the 1919
given for Mr. Douglas, gives only total of POS,
seven less than the vote claimed by this commit
tee. Where do they get the remaining seven
votes? From Georgia and Arkansas. The State
of Georgia was entitled to 10 votes in the Con-
venton, to be cast by 20 delegates. The Demo-
cracy Of Georgia, however, appointed 40 delegates
to cast the 10 votes, and instructed them to vote
as unit, the majority to determine the action of
the State. Eleven of the delegates remained in
the Convention, but the majority who seeded
protested against these eleven being allowed to
vote, and the convention decided, by vote Of 148
to 100, that those remaining from that State were
not under the unit rule, entitled to VOTE
At Baltimore, the seeding delegates from Geor-
gia, reappointed by the State Convention, refused
to take their Seats but one Of item, Mr. Gaulden)
however. came into the Convention, but did not
pretend to vote because, under the decision of the
Convention, he not entitled to vote, as the
majority had determined not to take their seats in
the Convention.
And yet these are the persons decided by the
Convention to be spectators, and not dele
gates, who had no right to vote, and never did
vote in the Convention, who are now represented
as delegates by the Douglas Committee, and press
ed into the service for the purpose Of manufact-
uring a two-thirds vote for Dir Dougas
ARKANSAS.
Under the decision of the Convention the two
delegates, Messrs Flournoy and Strman, who re-
manned in the Convention at Charleston were al
lowed to cast vote; the three bogus delegates
from the first Congressional district, vote; and
the withdrawing delegates who were reaccredited
to Baltimore, two votes. The latter declined to
take their seats, and Mr. Stirman withdrew
He is thus reported:
"Mr Stirman, of Arkansas when his State was call
ed said, in justice to himself and with sorrow, he
parted with the Convention, he could not longer
main after what had been done.'
Thus majority of the delegates actually ad
mitted to the Convention had withdrawn or refus-
ed to take their seats, and under the unit rule the
minority had no ri ht to vote. Yet the committee
have counted the vote of Mr. Stirman, who had
withdrawn, increased the one vote awarded by the
convention to the bogus three, to vote and
half, and thus secured additional vote from Ar
kansas in favor of the resolution. In this way
the Douglas Committee got six additional votes
from Georgia, and one from Arkansas in favor of
the resolution, thus increasing their figures from
205 to PIP votes.
ACTUAL VOTE CAST FOR Mr. DOUGLAS.
We now propose to show, beyond cavil, that
even the vote (1SlD given by the Douglas Ex-
ecutive Committee, in the foregoing table, as hav
ing been cast for MIR Douglas, is based on error
Let us examine the matter.
Massachusetts, is put down at 10 votes for Mr.
Douglas, when there only ten delegates, en-
titled to cast FIVE votes, remaining in the Conven-
ton from that State. Massachusetts had thirteen
votes represented by 26 delegates sixteen of these
delegates withdrew, and joined the Breckenridge
and Lane Convention, leaving, we repeat, but ten
delegates to cast FIVE votes.
Vermont was represented by 10 delegates, with
the right to cast five votes. She is reported as
having given the whole FIVE to Mr. Douglas, in
stead Of Al, of the delegates (Mr Stoughton)
having withdrawn and joined the other Conven-
ton.
Minnesota is recorded as having cast her full
vote for Mr. Douglas, when three of her delegates
entitled to votes, refused to vote for him. and