Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-08-13

y more eeckIeo aStempt bas eclQm
In madAfin this country to dsetive
and mislid the people in regap to .
hilloricaf fact than that mode " Presi.
dent Buchanan, when he ventured in bis
stump. speech against the Democratic
nominee for President, to declare the
81 Tho Thirds Rule" had been "broken to
pieces" by the Democratic National Con-
veption 10 the nomination of Stephen
A. Douglas. It is . matter OF surprise
that the falsehood Of that declaration
has heretofore been exposed by an exhi-
bition in detail Of the facts in relstion
TO that rule. Having examined its his
tory, here present the record 40 it is,
and the world will Judge what faith to
Mace in Mr.. Buchanan's statement. l
commend the facts 10 an especial man.
ner to those honest Democrats Who wish
TO sustain regular nominations, but have
been led by the declaration oftbe I@es-
;dsnt of the United States to believe
that Mr.. Douglas WAS nominated in vio-
lation Of the established usagcs Of the
party. Idesire that they should not
take HE word for that; but should ex-
anime the record for themselves, and
learn that his word on that subject is ut
terly worthless.
Before proceeding to present the his
torical facts, let the question be fairly
stated. Mr.. Buchanan, in his speech,
was referring TO the "Two-Thirds Rule"
as established by Democratic National
Conventions previous to that OF the
present year. He gave its origin, and
referred to its effect upon the party dur-
ing the period which had elapsed since
the old Congressional Caucus system
va. abandoned, and that Of National
Conventions was instituted, for the first
time in 1892. In broad terms he aver
red that the rule had been broken to
pieces" by the Convention that nomin-
ated Mr.. Douglas but he Was careful
not to specify in what particular, or by
what act that was done. His words
meant nothing, if they did not mean
that the Convention had repealed, or
overturned, or disregarded the Two
Thirds Rule" as it had previously ex-
listed. Az to the resolution passed At
Charleston, on the lst Of May, 1860, re-
curing the President Of the Convention
not to declare any person nominated I'M
less he received two-thirds Of all the
notes.-the full Convention was entitled
to cast, Mr.. Buchanan did not mention
it, or refer to it in any way. If it was
| in bis mind at all, he knew that nothing
was to be made by saying anything
about it, because that resolution was
binding on the Convention only just as
long as the Convention chose that it
should be so. 1t WAS new rule, never
before introduced into any Democratic
National Convention. 1t differed from,
but did not in spirit destroy the old
"Two-Thirds Rule" since it required a
larger vote for nomination than that
| rule did. 1t was not based on any pre-.
| vious usage OF the party, but was the
creature OF that Convention, and might
be repealed or disregarded by that Con-
veution, without violating any party
usage or obligation.
1t is, therefore, perfectly manifest that
MI. Duchanan's charge OF breaking the
"Two.thirds Rule" to pieces is nonsense,
| If it do not refer to the rule which had
existed so long as to have become par
ty usage, which no Convention ought
to have set aside. This charge I pro
nounce false, and will show it to be &C
by the history of the Rule. The Rnle,
from the day Of its first adoption in 1882,
has required two-thirds Of all the votes
g;ven;; and no man will deny that S e.
pheu A. Douglas received far more than
chat proportion Of all the votes given at
Baltimore. 1t we're easily shown, as it
has many times been, that he received
two-thirds of all the votes faN Con-
vention was entitled to cast tut that
| is not the matter now under considera-
ton. The question is-was he nomi-
mated in accordance with the usage Of
the partyl Did he get the number Of
votes required by the "Two'thirds
Rule :" Ii my position is correct, that
the Rule required only two-thirds Of all
the votes given, then he was nominated
in accordance with the usage OF the
party otherwise not. Let us, then, ex-
anime tie Rule and its history 10 each Of
the seven Democratic National Conven-
tions, held prior to this year.
CONVENTION OF 1882.
The report Of the proceedings Of this
body resorted to, is that found in Niles
Register, vol. AZ, p. 234.
The following resolution was adopted:
"Resolved, That each State bs entitled in the
nomination to be made Of . candidate for the
Vice Presidency. to 9 number Of votes equal to
the number to which they viii be entitled in
the electoral colleges under the new appor
tionment in voting for President and Vice
President; and that two-thirds of the whole
number Of votes in the Convention ehsll be
necessary 10 constitute choice"
On the ballot for candidate for Vice
President, the vote was as follows:
Van Buren,. ..................... .2OS
Johnson. ...................... -
1t appearing that Mr.. Van Buren, had
received majority Of more than two
thirds OF all the votes given, be was de-
clared to be selected as the candidate
nominated by this Convention for the