Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-09-06

Total, l5
The National Convention should have been com
posed of 3O3 votes Deducting the number of those
who withdrew, refused to participate in its pro-
ceedngs, and not counting the bogus delegates, and
we find that the Convention which nominated Mr..
Douglas represented only l66 votes.
1t is true that the second and last ballot in that
Convention there were cast for all candidates total
vote including the bogus, of 1914; but Charmen OF
delegations, portion of which had withdrawn,
were, it is well known, permitted to cast as many
votes as they pleased provided the number DID not
exceed the number to which his State would have
been entitled had the delegation been full This
is at least the number of votes MIR. Douglass
friends claim, or the number they report as hav-
ing voted. There were, therefore, according to
their own showing, including the bogus delegates,
less than the twO-thirds (2O2 being twothrds) re-
quired to make regular" nomination, acting in
the Convention.
Take in connection the following extract from the
address of the st. Louis Democratic Central Com
mittee:
so that if Mr.. Douglas received the vote of
every delegate who remained in the Convention, he
st. lacked fortytwO electoral votes OF the number
necessary to a nomination. But he did not receive
the votes of all the delegates present in the Conven-
ton. How many of these abstaned from voting
uDOn the final motion to make his nomination unan
nous, we have no means of knowing. One, least
of the delegates from this State, who remained in
the Convention, did not vote upon that motion. Mr.
of the final motion, received the votes of all the
delegates who remained in the Convention and that
delegates representing more than two hundred and
two electoral votes present in the Convention
when that motion put. In order to obtain this
result they were forced to count not only those
delegates who like Messrs Wilkes. Lakenan, Hun
ter and Scott of this state, remained in the Conven-
ton with the express avowal that they would not
participate in its proceedings nor be committed by
its action; but also pretended delegates from the
States of Louisiana and Alabama; substitutes and
alternates who had no authority whatever to vote
and particularly by allowing delegates to cast each
an entire electoral vote when they were, by the
rules of the Convention entitled to cast only half
vote. We cite as an illustration of this latter class
of cases. the vote of Massachusetts,. That State
cast thirteen electoral votes, and represented
in the Convention by twenty-sx delegates. Sixteen
of these delegates withdrew from the Convention
and went with the other Convention, where they
cast for Mr.. Breckenridge the eight votes they
entitled to cast Of course, they left only ten dele
gates, entitled to five votes in the Douglas COnven
tion and yet these ten delegates GQOredt0 cast ten
electoral Uotes for Mr. Douglas and every statement
which the friends of Mr.. Douglas have put forth
claims that he received ten of the thirteen electoral
votes of Massachusetts, whereas he received only
five Further than this, the very proceedings of the
Douglas Convention show that there only 1914
votes cast in their Convention for their candidates
c0mbined-even if we count all of their bogus dele
gates, alternates, and double votes. They were
forced TO count delegates who were not participant
ing in their proceedings ii order to get the requisite
twothirds vote 1t is foolish to say that Mr. Douglas