The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1860-08-28
BREcK1N-1pGE. GUTHRIE. DoUeLAs.


Mich gan o
Wisconsin
Iowa
"On motion of Mr. Clark of Missouri at the instance
Of Mr. Hoge of Virginia. the question then pro-
pounded from the Chair, whether the nomination of
Douglas should should not be, without further
meny the unanimous act of the Convention and of all
the delegates present; the Chairman distinctly request
ing that any delegate who objected whether not
having vote should signify his dissent. No delegate
dssented; and thus, at last Stephen A. Douglas
unanimously nominated in a convention representing
than twothrds of all the electoral votes the
candidate of the Democratic party for the Presidency
of the United States.
"Was it irregular thus propose candidate? IF so,
Lewis Cass irreguary nominated at Baltimore, in
l84s, which man pretended, for the same
thod was adopted in his case.'
First. 1t is not true that General Cass was NOM
mated, iE 1913, in similar manner. Such a
procedure, the nomination of candidate by reso-
luton prior to his receiving two-thrds of the vote
of the Convention where there contest, never
before was witnessed in National Democratic Con-
vention. This resolution was another innovation
upon Democratic usages
Second. It is not true that the Chairman notified
the delegates that those who did not object should
be counted as voting for the resolution. No pub
lished proceeding of that Convention puts any such
remark into his mouth. On the contrary, every
published proceeding, including, those published
York papers, reported by different reporters, con-
clusivey demonstrates that he gave utterance to
no such language But, even if he did, it was not
in his power, and was not within the scope of his
duties presiding officer to dictate to delegates
what course they should pursue, or to bind them
by his mere ipse dirit Each delegate had the
right to vote, not to vote, as to him seemed
proper and of this he the sole judge answera-
bic for his course to his constituency alone. The
hos cd bot ~
the established usages of the party, it required
two-thrds (202 votes) of the electoral votes to
nominate The highest vote at any time attained
by MIR Douglas was 1919, and the whole number
cast 1876. How were POP votes for Mr. Douglas to
be manufactured out of 1876 votes all told, l43 of
which cast against him?
Eighteen delegates remained in the Convention
as spectators, taking part whatsoever 10 its de-
alterations, and expressly declaring that they
were mt bound by ITS decision. Various devices
were tried to compel these Is delegates to vote
MIR Church Of n. Y, had offered resolution de-
claring MIR Douglas the nominee, when he had
received only 1871 votes. We quote the follow
ing proceeding which then ensued:
'The question was loudly called for.
Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania, said he ready to sup
port nominee of the Convention when he shall be
nominated by the rules of the Democratic party At
Charleston it determined that thirds of all the
electoral college was necessary to a nomination.
1t objected that debate order.
The President (Mr Todd) so ruled.
Mr. Jones raised question of order-that the rule
adopted Charleston could not be repealed except
one days notice
Mr. Church explained the action at Charleston. New
York had here pour oil the troubled waters
and had faithfully endeavored to do They had
yielded everything except personal honor to heal the
divisions which existed. He proceeded condemn the
action of the seeding delegates.
Mr. W. S. Cuttings, of Maryland entered a protest
against the propositions of Mr. Church, of New York
rule adopted at Charleston that two-thirds of
all the votes of the electoral college required to
nominate candidate for President
The Chair explained, that at Charleston the then
President instructed not to declare any one nomi-
mated unless he received wothirds of the
electoral college, (202 votes.)
Mr. Cuttings said there two thirds of the electo
raj college here, and if gentlemen voted who declined
to vote, Douglas would be nominated by t"o-third
vote. He hoped that there wonld be ballots to
see what gentlemen would do, and that Mr. Church
would withdraw his resolution.
Cries of That's it-thats it-yes-yes'
Mr. Hoge, of Virginia, said he hoped there would be
no more ballots and those gentlemen who declined
to vote did vote, he should treat them of
Mr. Church then withdrew his resolution till another
ballot was had"
Yet, after this notice served upon these Is dele
gates, they again refused vote; and it is simply
ridiculous to say that the President could record
their votes cast in favor of the resolution Mr.
Church boldly declared that the ':resoiution aoas
intended TO change the rWte Of instruction adopted
at Charleston" requiring two-thirds vote to
nominate the candidate.
OF the IL delegates who remained in the Con-
vention as spectators, five were from Kentucky,
six from Delaware, and seven from Missouri
The five delegates from Kentucky filed writ
ten protest. in which they stated that though they
remained in the Convention, they ",oM not par
ttcipote in its deliberations, nor hold ourselves or
our constituents bound by ats action, but leave
both at full liberty to as future circumstances
may dictate (sgned by G. \. Caldwell, w. W.
Williams, W. Bradley, Samuel B. Field, and
Thos J. Young) .-,.
Mr. Salisbury, of Delaware, announced, in be-
halt OF the six delegates from his State who re-
manned in the Convention, but refused to vote,
that sin future they should decline to cote reserv-
ing to themselves the right to act hereafter as they
deemed proper"
The seven delegates from Missouri gave notice
that they would remain in the Convention, but
would take no part in it's deliberations And
these are the votes upon which this committee
base their two-thirds vote for Mr. Douglas.
NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT FROM THE
RESOLUTION NOMINATING MIR DOUGLAS.
But even admitting that the President did give
notice that those who did not object should be