Daily national Democrat., 1860-08-02
Daily gatlonal 1rmotrat.
To the National Democracy of Cali
fOrnia.

fOrnia.
FELLOW DEMOCRATS OF CALIFoRNIA A rev.
oiuionary pronunciamento, purporting to be
an address TO the National Democracy of
California, advising as to the common vel
fare, but, in fact, tending to the entire dis
organization and destruction of the Demo-
cratic party, has just been presented to the
public through the columns Of the San Fran
cisco Herald
The undersigned Democrats, deeply con-
eerned in maintaining the integrity and up-
holding the principles of that great Demo
cratic party which, since the days of Jeffer-
son, has secured union to the States and pros
perty TO the peope-of that great party
which has inaugurated all past and in which
are centered all hopes Of future, progress, feel
1t to be our duty as Democrats, devoted to
the prosperity OF the party and the union of
the states, to make plain and exact re.
sponse to this mischievous and fallacious pub
lleatlon, which we charge to be contradicted
IN almost its entirety by the truths of history
Admitting as it does, that the nomination
OF Breckenridge and Lane is not obligatory
upon the Democratic party, the purpose of
THIS document appears to be the maintenance
of the position that Douglas and johnson
were not nominated at Baltimore in accord
ance with the us0ges of the Democratic party
and that therefore their nomination is not
binding on the Democratic masses, who, hav-
ing been set free from party discipline, and
left without party organization, are recon-
mended to support Breckenridge and Lane
tho secession nominees.
This attack upon the regularity of the Bal
timore nominations has its origin in higher
quarters than this body of San Francisco
counsellors, but no person who will carefully
examine the argument made, will fail to see
that the assumption of this position is mere
pretext, to cover an otherwise nexcusable at
tempt at the Reorganization Of the party
Attempts of this kind have been frequently
made during the last half century, and we do
not DOUBT that TINS Will prove as signal fail
ure as any one of its predecessors
We affirm that above and beyond all lust
question, Douglas and Johnson were REGULAR
iy nominated, according to the strictest laws
and usages of the Democratic party.
First. The nominations were made in ac-
cordance with the letter of the two-thirds
iule, as well as in accordance with the prac-
tice under it,
1he two-third rule first adopted at Balt>
more, in 1892 was as follows;
Resot0ed, That each State be entitled. in
the nomination to be made of candidate for
the vice Presidency, to number of votes
equal to the number that they will be enti-
tied to in the Electoral Colleges under the
new apportionment, in voting for President
and Vice President, and that two-thirds of
the whole number Of votes IN tie Conrentios
shall be necessary to choice.
General jackson was really nominated bv
the great masses of the Democracy for the
Presidency, and therefore the Convention was
called at the instance of the New Hampshire
Legislature to nominate Vice President, and
to him alone was the rule applied
Precisely the same rule was adopted in
1914, and again in l84S, and applied to the |,
nomination of President The language of
the rule is clear and unequivocal To make |
a nomination requires a vote of twothirds of
the members "ia the Conuentioa." It never
was the design ofany one of the National
Conventions to perpetrate the folly of cloth
ing a minority of one third with the power to |
destroy the organization of the party BY any
form of factious antagonism. The rule has
always been the creature of the majority, and
always within the power of that majority, |
ana has never been construed to mean any
thing more than is expressed in plain Ian
guage. The regularity of the nomination of
General Cass in 1913 has never been dspu- |
ted, and reference TO the proceedings of the |
Convention of that year will clearly show the |
understanding, usage" and law of the party |
IN interpreting this "twothirds' rule. The |
whole number of electoral votes was 2SS, of !
which 1872 would have been two.thrds, South |
Carolina being unrepresented. Two sets of
delegates were admitted from New York
One set seeded under protest, and proceeded |
to nominate Mr.. Van Buren at Utica the
other set declined participating in the action
OF the Convention. Upon the fourth and
hu lNt In n ~,
Woodbury. 49, Mr.. Buchanan 33, and Gen.
Worth 3. The President of the Convention.
Mr. Stevenson of Virginia, announced that
Mr. Cass, having received two-thirds of the
votes an The Convention, was duly nominated
as the Democratic candidate for the Presi-
dency The vote Of Mr. Cass lacked Is of
being two>thrds of the entire electoral vote;
but we believe this was never regarded by
the Democratic party as affecting the regu-
lality or validity of the nomination, and it
was supported by the Democracy.
1t is not disputed that at Charleston Mr.
Douglas received clear majority of the full
Convention. On the second and last ballot
at Baltimore, out of 1861 he received 1914
votes, when on motion of Mr.. IIoge of Vir-
gnia seconded by Mr. Clark of Missouri, it
was
Resolved unanimously. That Stephen A.
Douglas, of the State of Illinois, having now
received twothirds of all votes given in this
Convention, is hereby declared, in accord
"nce with the rules governing this body and
in accordance with the uniform customs and
lules of former Democratic National Conven-
uons, the regular nominee of the Democratic
party otthe United States for the office of
PRESIDENT of the United States.
1t has been stated that the former rule was
modified at Charleston, on motion of Mr..
Russell OF Virginia, so as to REQUIRE two
1hlrds OF the entire electoral vote to make q
nomination. Such was not the fact A TEN.
porary order to that effect was made, out Of
courtesy to Mr. Russell who declared himself
NJ the time without authority to cast the vote
OF Virginia, and was subsequently,, upon the
same gentlelnans motion, laid upon the table.
W hen the secession took place at Charles
ton, the seceders resigned all place and right
IN the Convention; their temporary return
ut Baltimore was a mere device of their more
astute advisers at Washington, to secure
greater and more mischievous confusion. 1t
would have been altogether consistent with
law and usage and we think with sound
policy, if they had been sternly denied all
further participation in the proceedings of the
Convention. The admission of any one of
them was clear act of grace on the part of
the majority, After the further and final
secession at Baltimore, for the express pur-
pose Of opposition, it is simply absurd to pre-
tend that the seeding minority constituted
any part OF the National Convention, or pos
sess any power as such. The pretension is
not only absurd, but mischevous and de-
moralizlng, in government where all order
- j