Gazette and sentinel., 1860-09-01


cratic usages.
Second. 1t is not true that the Chairman
notified the delegates that those who did not
object should be counted as voting for the res
%olutiOn. No published proceeding of that
Convention puts any such remark into his
mouth. On the contrary, every published pro-
c~eeding, including those published at the time
in the Baltimore, Washington, and New York
papers, reported by different reporters, con-
c~lusively 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 as a presiding officer, to
dictate to delegates what course they should
pursue, AS to bind them by his mere ipse DIRT.
Each delegate had the right to vote. or not to
vote, as to him seemed proper; and of this he
was the sole Judge, answerable for his course
to his constituency alone. The Convention
had decided that, in accordance with the es-
tablished usages of the party, it required two
thirds (2O2 votes of the electoral votes to NOM
mate. The.highest vote at any time attained
by Mr.. Douglas was 1919, and the whole num-
Der cast 1856. How were 202 votes for Mr..
Douglas to be manufactured out of 1856 votes
all told, l49 of which were cast against him ,
Eighteen delegates remained in the Conven-
ton as spectators, taking no part whatsoever
in its deliberations, and expressively declaring
that they were not bound by its decision. Va
rious devices were tried to compel these Is del
egates to vote. Mr.. Church of New York,
had offered n resolution declaring Mr.. Douglas
the nominee, when he had received only 1874
votes. We quote the following proceedings
which then ensued
1.-THE question was loudly called for.
MIR. Jones of Pennsylvania, said he was
ready to support the nominee of the Conven-
ton when he shall be nominated by the rules
OF the Democratic party. At Charleston it
was determined that two-thirds of all the cleo
toral college was necessary to a nomination.
alt was objected that debate was not in or
der.
1.-The President (Mr. Todd so ruled.
"Mr. Jones raised a question of order
that the rule adopted at Charlenotice.
not be repealed except on seu the action at
"Mr. Churchaud his resolution was in
CharlestoRaang the rule of instruction adopted
Richardson. New York had come here to
pour oil on the troubled waters, and had faith
fully endeavored to do SO. They had yielded
everything except personal honor to heal the
divisions which existed. He proceeded tocon-
denim the action of the seeding delegates.
mir. W. S. Cuttings of Maryland. entered
a protest against the propositions of Mr..
Church of New York. A rule was adopted at
Charleston that two-thirds of all the votes OF
the electoral college was required to nominate
a candidate for President.
The Chair explained, that at Charleston the
then President was instructed not to declare
any one nominated unless he received two
thirds of the votes Of the electoral college,
(202 votes) E @Ft .
"Mr. Cuttings said there were two-thirds of
the electoral college here, and if gentlemen
voted who declined to vote, Douglas would be
nominated by a two-third vote. He hoped
| there would be more ballots to See what gen
tlemen would do, and that Mr.. Church would
| withdraw his resolution.
"Cries of That's it-that's it-yes-yes.'
Mr.. Hoge Of Virginia, said he hoped there
WOULD be no ballots, and if those gentlemen
who declined to vote did not vote, he should
treat them as out of the Convention.
"Mr. Church then withdrew his resolution
till another ballot was had"
Yet. after this notice served upon these lS
delegates, they again refused to vote and 1t Is
simply ridiculous to say that the President
could record their votes as cast in favor of the
resolution. Mr.. Church boldly declared that
the resolution icas intended to change the rue
of instruction adopted at Charleston" requir-
ing a two-thirds vote to nominate the candl-
date.
Of the 18 delegates who remained IN the
Convention as spectators, five were from Ken
tuky, six from Delaware, and seven from
Missouri.
The five delegates from Kentucky filed a
written protest, in which they stated ,ha'
though thew remained in the Convention, they
:. ,riE NOT participate in its deliberations, nor
hold ourselves or our constituents bound by ats
action. but leave both at full liberty to act as
future circumstances may dictate tsigned
Inv q. A. Caldwell, W. w. Williams, w.
BRADLEY. Samuel b. Field, and Thos. j.
Young.)s :.
MT salisbury of Delaware, announced, IN
bebalf of the six delegates from his State VINO
remained in the Convention, but refused 10
vote that "in future they should dectine TO
rotc. rcserving to themselves the right to act
hereafter as they deemed proper"
The seven delegates from Missouri gave no
tice that they would remain in the Conven
ton, but would take no part in Its dehbera
tions. And these are the votes upon whicf
this committee base their two-thirds vote 10
Mr.. Douglas. ar ii
NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT FRoN
THE RESOLUTION NoMINATING Mr.. DOUGLAS
r But even admitting that the President di
@ rive notice that those who did not objee
4 should be counted in favor of the resolution
Y even admitting the proposition that his mer
ipse DIRT had the power to bind the delegat.
v who did not dissent, even in the face OF the
declarations that they would not vote We no
v proceed to show that no opportunity was q
forded to any delegate to object to the passag
of the resolution. The extract Of the pr'
re ceedings which we have heretofore quote'
shows that debate upon this resolution was d
J? cided to be out of order and, under tn
d ruling, Mr.. Jones, Of Pennsylvania, who 70
er to enter his dissent, was unceremonious
Gagged. Having thus closed their mouth