Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1860-08-10

not believe the desire to preserve strength
in a delegation is sufficient justification for
the preparation Of an act wrong IN itself,
nor for supporting candidate long after bis
chances for nomination are gone, to the dis
ad vanta e Of other candidates-pei haps the
disruption of the party. Our adherence to
the unit vote was conditional. contingent
upon the business of that unity and It's COM
patability with principles Of political faith
expressed by US at home and the harmony
and success of the Democratic party. So
long as The combined power of the delega-
ton tended TO these results. we adhered to
the "unit vote" but when it conficted
Herewith, we refused to accede to it's behest,
and would have had less respect for oursel-
YES if we had not.
We take occasion ia this connection e
enter our protest against the basis on which
this 'funit vote reposes, and to invite the
Democracy of Virginia to observe the pal
pable injustice which can readily be perpe-
trated on the majority Of their number in
the State by majority Of the State delega-
| ton in National Convention. II.
Under the present system Of voting in the
delegation, each delegate is entitled to cas-
one vote, without any reference to the Dem
ocratic numbers which such delegate repre-
sents, delegate representing distriot'con-
tanning three thousand Democrats being al
lowed the same power as one representing
nine thousand.
1t will be perceived, then, With this rela-
ton and equality Of power existing among
delegates that a majority Of delegates may
reflect the minority feeling (even when The
sentiments Of distinct districts are justly rep
resented1 and the minority of a delegation
may represent the predominant sentiment o.
Virginia without any power to express that
sentiment, delegation composed Of mem
bers each allowed equal influence and power
in the decision of questions, being capable
of such division that IS delegates may moi
represent more Democratic numbers than /:
delegates 4 political device fabricated or
so unfair representation Of popular will
can never be entitled to blind vereratiol
and fealty from men educated as freemel.
The chairman Of the Virginia delegation
when he asserted the cunt vote to be tn
''common law" or custom Of the Democrats
party Of the Site. and therefore binding
upon each member Of the delegation, nus
certainly have overlooked or mistaken th
definition Of terms, or been misinformed il
reference to the history of his party.
The "unit vote" to be esteemed and su5
tanned as the common law" OF the party
must be proven to be immemorial in it's op
erations, or, at least, to have been use
from the organic alton of the party under tn
administration of Democratic conventions
to have received the common or general con
sent of those Interested, and to be free frol
absurdity and injustice.
That it is unjust, we have already shown
from its attributng the same power and in
auenoe in deciding for whom the united yot
shall be cast, to delegate representing tire
thousand votes, as to enc representing tel
thousand, and that it has not been immemo
rally agreed upon and consented to, we fin
by reference to tie proceedings of the Vir
ginia delegation at Cincinnati, in 1856.
/ BY the following extract it is shown that
although the right to cast tie votes of th
protesting districts separately was not exer
cised, yet it was held and reserved as a rich
to be acted upon whenevr it became necessa
ry.
It appears from the proceedings 81 tn
delegation, that resolution was adopted Il
the effect 'that the fifteen votes of Virgini;
be cast for such candidate for the Presi
dency and Vice Presidency as majority o
the delegates shall determine"
Mr.. Garnett gave notice that the Eigh
District reserved the right to cast the vos,
Of the district unrestrained by this resolu-
ton.
Mr.. Barbour gave the same notice for tn,
delegates from the Ninth District
( Mr.. Seldom gave notice that he reserved
for himself the right to decide when the con
tingency might arise. A very ancient ant
venerable "custom," or common law,
this, which is wanting in not only one O.
the elements Of the meaning of the term, bu
in all-instead Of being immemorial and gen
orally agreed upon as wise and just, is me
mortal, disputed, absurd and unjust. .Whcrt
will the elastioity|of The secession logic mex
make it's bounce?
The rejection of the majority report ana
the endorsement of that of the minority. was
made the occasion for the withdrawal of The
Alabama delegates from the National Dem.
ocratic Convention, a step followed by Mis-
sissippi, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and por-
tions of Georgia, Arkansas and South Car
DINA. This secession merely upon an in.
tangible abstraction by delegates ofsuch en-.
( lightenment from the deliberations of great
party organization, which alone possessed
the power Of protecting the free institutions
Of their country frotl the usurpation of q
dark and dangerous fanaticism, is without q
parallel in the history of any party in any
country.
| II was a proceeding as dangerous as it was
novel in the history of the Democratic par
Ity.
| The Missouri Compromise was passed by
Congress, excluding the institution Of slav-
cry from all that portion of Louisiana North
of the line of 800 30/. Notwithstanding
this unjust legislation, Democrats differing
essentially upon it, it was never made test
Of party fealty. the Compromise measures
of 1850 were enactcd-one Of which abolish
ed the slave trade in the District of Column
bia, and another admitting California as a
free State by the most unjust and arbitrary
action, were submitted to with graceful be-
nightly by the South. Mr. Howell Cobb,
! the right excellence Secretary of the Treas
ury, under the economical administration of
James Buchanan, being the peculiar cham
! pion Of these measures before the Southern