Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1860-08-24
Maryland, FRIDAY MORNING, AUGUST "a. 1860
were they treated by the friends of Mr..
noUO1oeo


Douglas?
BOGUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
Benjamin L. Hallett was regularly APP
pointed a delegate from Massachusetts to
the National Convention; the same con-
vcntion appointed X. L, Chai1ee as his
alternate. Owing to sickness, Mr.. Hal
lett was unable to attend the Convention
at Charleston, and, in his absence, Mr..
Chaffee, his alternate, took his place.
AT Baltimore, however, Mr.. Hallett was
present, but the Convention actually
turned him out; actually turned out the
regular delegate, and gave the seat to the
alternate!
MISSOURI.
The same course was adopted in regard
to the Eighth Electoral district of Mis-
souri,. Mr.. johnson 3. Garder, the
regular delegate, was unceremoniously
oustcd out of his seat, and Mr. O'Fallon,
the contingent, voted in. Heretofore, it
has always been considered that the al
ternate acted only in the absence of the
principal, but this Convention gravely
determined that the true test for admis-
sion into that Convention consisted in an
affirmative answer to the question, Are
you for the nomination of Stephen A.
Douglas?
LOUISIANA AND ALABAMA.
The next step was to vote out the regu-
lar delegation from the State of Louisi-
ana, who were re-appointed to Baltimore
by the convention that originally APP
pointed them, and also to exclude the
regular delegates from Alabama, who
were appointed by a new convention
called by the Democratic committee Of
the State. The history Of the cases is
this. After the secession at Charleston,
the Democratic Central Committee of
Louisiana, the only association in that
State having the power to assemble the
Democracy in convention, called together
the State convention, representing every
county in the State, and that convention
rc-appointed the same delegates to Balt-
more. A few irresponsible men called
another convention, at which the Demo
cracy Of the State were not represented.
In the case of Alabama, the Democratic
Central Committee called new conycn-
ton, to be elected by the Democracy of
the several counties This convention
met, and sent back the regular delegates
to Baltimore. A number Of persons,
however, issued call, published in only
S three papers in the State, addressed to
Q the people, not the Democracy Of Ala
bama, for another convention, which met
and appointed set Of delegates, the
G leader Of whom never cast Democratic
v vote in his life, and who openly avowed
) that he was going to Baltimore to vote
G for Mr.. Douglas, in order to break up
: the Democratic party! Yet the so-callod
n national convention voted out the regular
delegates elected by the Democracies Of
these States, and voted in the bogus
delegates
: ARKANSAS.
I'll In the case of Arkansas, the Congress.
d sional Conventions Of tho State which
g nominated the Democratic candidates for
c Congress, rc-appointed the delegates to
b, Baltimore. Yet this Convention dclibcr-
/ ately voted out the regular delegates SO
c elected in the first district; while they
0 declared that the regular delegates, elected
J. Ia the same manner, in the second dis
f trict, were entitled to their seats and
then, in defiance Of the resolution Of the
C Democratic State Convention of Arkan-
: sas, instructing the delegates to vote as a
J. unit, and in utter violation Of their owJl
: unit resolution, they divided the vote Of
e the State, giving the bogus delegates
,r from the first district the right to cast
/ one vote, and the regular delegates from
IS the second district two votes; nay they
even went further, and resolved that, in
case the regular delegates from the second
district did not vote, the bogus delegates
"a from the first district were to cast the
7 full vote Of the State And yet, after
such high-handed procedure as this, we
r are meekly told by the Douglas Com
mttee that sit must be conceded that the
report of the Committee on Credentials
. was so liberal and conciliatory toward
/, the secedcrs and their friends ns to be
hardly just to the representatives Of the
National Democracy from this State ]"
GEORGIA.
In the case of Georgia the Douglas
men themselves called State Conyon
ton for the purpose of having the sece-
ding delegates repudiated by the Demo
cracy of that State. Every shade Of the
Democratic party Of the State participant
cd in the election Of delegates. The
/, Convention met, and upon taking vote,
the seeding or regular delegates were
sent back to Baltimore, by vote of 900
to Al. The forty-ono Douglas delegates
then bolted, and also appointed delegates.
Yet the Douglas Committee on Credcn-
tials at Baltimore, in defiance again Of
tho resolution Of the Georgia Convention
instructing their delegates TO vote as
unit, and in utter violation Of their own
rule upon the subject, reported in favor
Of dividing the vote Of the State, giving
ono-half TO the regular delegates, and
onc-half to the bogus appointces Of the
Al boilers But this was too great an
outrage even for this Convention, and
they voted to admit the regular delegates,
and thus placed the brand Of Jogus upon
the brow Of ii. v. johnson, the Doug
las candidate for Vice-Prcsident! Com
menting upon this action, the Douglas
Executive Committee characterizes Il as
an extrayagance Of libcralityl'
Thus was the Democracy Of sovereign
I Ia