Daily national Democrat., 1860-07-29
The Manifesto of the Federal Office
HcIdare

them ALL Uncle Jeemes, of the White
House. OF course they attempt to sus-
tain themselves by argument and it is
laughable to mark the process by which they
80 about this desperate endeavor. knowing
that organization is all powerful among Dem
oerats, their grand effort is to make it appear
that the nomination of Douglas was not reg
ular. We venture to say that the idea that
the Convention which nominated Douglas
was not the regular National Convention of
the Democratic party, is the most original
and unique ever promulgated in this age of
fantastieal notions. Nobody but Buchanan
Office holder would ever have dreamed of
enuncating such proposition. Why, even
the Seceders from the Convention, in taking
their departure, bade farewell in express
terms. to the Democratic organization, and
declared their connection with the Demo-
cratic party forever severed. They hadn't
thought of this Buchanan dodge of disputing
the regularity of the Convention bit plainly
avowed what they and the whole world
knew to be true. towit that they were bolt
ing the regular organization. 1t remained
for the distorted optics Of the Federal Ad-
ministratiun TO see the matter in a new phase
and reflect it in that shape upon such por-
ton of the public mind as was impressiJle
enough to receive it.
We say it is laughable to see how these
twenty-one Buchanan office holders, at San
Francisco go to work to show that the Con-
veniion, which adopted the platform on
which Douglas stands and which nominated
Douglas, was not regular They say that
the adoption of the unit rule, by which dele
cations which were instructed voted as in
structed, and those not instructed voted in
dividunlly, gave majority to Douglas which
he would not otherwise have received, and
that it was unfair. We cannot see how it
was unfair. Certainly delegates instructed
had no right to go contrary to instructions,
and those who were not instructed were nec>
essarily left free to vote as they pleased But
be that as it may, the National Convention
adopted the rule, which is thus complained
Of by an overwhelming majority, many
of those, whobecame Seceders afterwards
voting for it, If it was such q terrible
thing, why did they vote for it? BY voting
for it, they stood committed to abide by it,
no matter how it worked. The fact is. thev
were emphatically in favor of the rule, and
thought it would work against Douglas. 1t
did mt happen to do so, and their chagrin was
great. The friends of Douglas could not
help that.
The adoption of this unit rule is the great
turning point upon which the entire argu-
ment of the twenty-one office holders hinges
The public can therefore comprehend at once
upon what flimsy basis they stand in dis.
putting the regularity of the proceedings
Acquiescing in this rule, nay, having
themselves voted for it, the afterward Seee-
ders went on to vote for platform. The
non intervention platform was adopted by a
decided majority, and now the upholders OF
the Seceders say, the platform was not "reg-
ular on account of this unit rule.
1t is very convenient for these twenty-one
office holders to make out a table, showing
how the vote would hare stood, had the unit
rule not been adopted. But everybody knows
how the vote did stand, and that is much
better. The one is very doubtful, mere
matter Of conjecture. The other is certain
We all know full we'll that the non-interven-
tion Platform was adopted, but whether it
would have been rejected under a different
rule we can't say. However, we have as
good right to cay it wouldn't have been re-
jected as these twenty-one Office holders have
to say that it would. Making out tables and
arraying figures on mere conjecture is all
well enough as an exercise of ingenuity or a
method Of filling up a spare hour, but it
doesn't convince anybody of anything, one
way or the other. How can these twenty
one office holders assume to say that men
would have voted, Without instructions. in a
manner different from what they did wiM in
structions? How do they know anything
about it? Were they the keepers of the
consciences of all the delegates in the Con-
venton
! ''Oi tai L WSutO -OHc CuHululy hc-
knowledge, in their proclamation, that Breck.
inridge and Lane are not the nominees of the
| regular National Convention. And they
want to make it appear that the Convention
which nominated Douglas and johnson is in
the same predicament. With what success
they have sustained is fimsy pretence we
have seen in the above comments upon their
Address,
Their last and final ground of attack on
the regularity Of the Baltimore Convention
Is that Douglas was not nominated by a two
thirds vote. We reply that he was nomina-
ted by 2l2 votes because his nomination
was declared unanimous, and there were PIP
votes in the Convention, after the Seceders
left. Two hundred and twelve votes are
more than two thirds of the entire electoral
vote of the Union. So Douglas did receive a
two thirds nomination. "But," say the i'm
mortal Twenty-one, before the vote was made
unanimous, he only got 1919 votes by ballot
Well, even then he received a more than
two-thirds vote of the Democratic delegates,
because those delegates who had bolted could
OF course no longer be recognized. But"
say the immortal Twenty-one, "a rule was
adopted at Charleston, that no person should
be declared as nominated who did not re-
ceive two.thirds of all the votes that the full