Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1860-10-09
Meeting of tho State Democratic Executive
Committee.

Meeting Of tho State Democratic Executive
Committee.
4 session of this body was called for the
9TH inst, TO fill vacancies among the assistant
and county electors; the members from all parts
Of the State either brought or wrote most en-
coulaging accounts Of the condition and pros
poets Of the party. Fifteen Of the committee
were present. and upon a comparison Of the
opinions as furnished by them, we entertain
no fears MS to the result in the State.
The aylor proposition was submitted by the
Douglas committee and pcrcmptorly declined
there nas not 1t member 9t' The Ucmocratic
Eeecutirc Committee Mat ~0uM entertain
Tie propositiou Greater unanimity VIC have
never Known than existed in the Executive
Committee against dividing the vote Of NirSl-
mia. There was not a member Of the Com
mittcc that did not Indignantly rcpudiate Il
proposi,ion which looked to change in the
ancient usage Of the party-a usage that had
received not only the sanction of siNtys.ycars,
but the appreciation of Thomas Jefferson, and
of all true and faithful State Rights Democrats
from 1900 10 1850. 1t was ycuarly consis
tent in the Douglas manager n Virginia. that
the partsans Of him who ha,' divided and bro
ken mp the National org g",ization, should
propose the dcmorallzation Of the Virgins
Democracy and the ruin aud destruction o.
the weight and influence Of the State. When
Mr.. Baylor first published his proposition doubt
less he had not considered its practical operation
upon the moral influence If the Statc-actua-
ted BY noble State pride, lac looked only to the
triumph Of the Virginia Democracy. Living in
Staunton, surrounded by the influence and
msinformed as to the real strength Of Douglas
in Virginia, lie imagined the State in some
danger. But We cannot believe that Mr.. Bay
lor had ever reelected upon the consequence:
that would have attended the adoption OF hi:
| propostio. Not so with the Douglas com
mittee-thcy had been advised as to the practi
cal operation of that proposition; they we'll knew
that its adoption would have destroyed all th'
moral weight that attaches to Virginia, by
her undertaking and consistent course Of uni
voting-thcy disrcgarded all this, and tender
ed proposition as the only basis Of united ac
ton, that would have degraded Virginia IRON
her present proud and noble position to th'
low level of divided State.
No better solution Of the ends and oc]cc's
Of the Douglas faction i'll Virginia cou1u nave
been furnished than has been by the action o
their committee in this matter; that they are &C
.uatcd by no political principle is demonstrated
oy the tender of proposition that destroyed the
weirht and influence Of Virginia; a PROPOSE
ton that ncgativcd all principle either oil squat
ter sovereignty, as maintained by Douglas Oh
of popular sovereignty, as held by the Demo
cratic party. If the Douglas faction in 'irgl
MIA really hold the principle Of squatter sove
rcisnty they ought never to have rendered ;
proposition that looks to the partial denial
that principle. As adhcrents Of Douglas, ant
supporters of his heresy, they could not, witt
any consistency, have voted for ticket VIII
one man uponit who denied that doctrine Bu