Daily national Democrat., 1860-09-05

ing that there was 10 be no secession from the
Convention by those who voted on the reso-
luton, but that all were to remain, until a
nomination could be made. 1t seems, how
ever that number of the delegates who
thus impliedly pledged themselves, did not
abide by this virtual contract, but left the
Convention at Baltimore, and then undertook
to say that those who remained in the Con-
yention were still bound by that contract
which they, themselves, the Seceders, had
repudiated MIR. Church, of New York
fully explained this matter in his speech sus-
tanning his resolution that Stephen a. Doug.
las be declared the nominee The resolu-
ton was as follows:
"REsoLvLD, That Stephen A. Douglas, having
received two-thirds ofall the votes cast in this
National Democratic Convention, is, according to
the rules of this Convention aud the usages of
the Democratic party, declared nominated for the
Office Of President Of the United States"
His speech in support of the resolution is
thus reported in brief by the New York
Herald:
York IN this contest. She had been willing to
yield all except personal honor and the honor of
her constituents to coucate and harmonic the
Democratic party. But when approached and
told they must yield the candidate who was cho-
sen, and who was the choice Of the Democracy Of
the State, and III addition admit Internationally
INTO the Convention men who had seeded without
any just cause, they had spurncd the overtures.
They would now 60 home and sweep the State OF
New York as a WhlI lwind. loud applause)
They had at Charleston voted to construe the two
thirds rule to mean two-thirds of the vote Of the
Electoral College, at tie re2ues 9t the h0uth, who
remained with them on the DicIg6 that if they SO
voted the South acouH remain toith the C0nren-
toH. A portion of the South had broken the
pledge, and now this wrong construction OF the
rule was no longer a peace offering. New York
was prepared to take all responsibility for the res
outlOn he now offered. A portion OF the South
had seeded only for the ayOwed reason that
majority of the Convention chose to decide on
the contested seat questions against the wishes of
the minority, and If such action endorsed by
the party there would be an end Of all conyen
tons"
Such was the meaning of the agreement
at Charleston, in regard to changing the two
thirds rule The parties to the contract on
one side broke the contract, and they couldn't
expect that the other side would still be
bound by it.
4th. Had the new rule been, morally, par
lamentarily and in every other way, in full
force and virtue at the re.assembling of the
National Convention, it would still have been
abrogatod by the resolution Of Mr.. Church,
which was adopted. That resolution yirtu.
ally repeated and anaulied the Howard reso-
luton at Charleston.
But, lastly, in point of actual fact, did not
Douglas receive two-thirds of the votes of
the Electoral College? We have proven,
over and over again, and it is admitted by
our opponents, that he did receive two-thirds
of the votes gigen, at Baltimore, and we have
shown that that was all that was required.
But, did he not receive actually two>thirds
of all the votes of a full convention? Ger
tainly he did, for the resolution declaring him
the nominee of the Democratic party was
unanimously adopted, and there were 2l2
delegates in the Convention at the time, oucr
two thirds of the Electoral College
There never was a palmer thing in the
world than the regularity of the Douglas
nomination, and the frantic efforts of Boilers
and Secessionists to make it appear other
wise, only bring confusion upon their own
heads