The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-05-18
trro,n The Constit,ltion, Nav II

United States.
sembIed at Charleston have developed divergence
of opinion between the delegations of the different
States in relation to the principles which form the
basis of our Union. The National Democratic
platform adopted at Cincinnati In 1856 met the cor
dial approval of all who believed these United
states to be- what their very name imports, a
union of States equal, sovereign, and endowed
in all respects with equal rights. This approval
was based what seemed to us to be the plain
meaning of the resolutions embraced in that plat.
form. During the four years, however, which
have since interviewed, it has become painfully APP
parent that the construction deemed by so mani
testify right, is controverted by many members of
our party; that other principles are supposed to
find countenance in that platform-princples. in
our Judgment, subversive of the true theory of the
Government and of the Constitution to which our
Union owes its birth, and whose preservation its
pc rmanent existence depends. What is the histo-
ry of the recent Convention at Charleston? Seven
teen States forming majority of the whole.
adopted with remarkable unanimity platform of
principles so worded to avoid the possibility OF
neutrality-suspicious. deemed political axi-
oms by all who uphold the equal rights of the
States as the very basis of the COnfederacy. Many
delegates from the remaining sixteen States con-
Cured in opinion with this majority, conspicuous
amongst whom were delegates from Pennsylvania
and New Jersey. The States which adopted thi
platform give electoral votes which can be relied
on with absolute certainty in favor of Democratic
nominees, and we'll grounded confidence is
entertained OF q ike result IN pennsylvania
and New Jersey. These seventeen States
united with Pennsylvania alone comprise
majority of the entire electoral vote of
the United States, able to elect the Democratic
nominees against the combined opposition OF all the
remaining States This platform was deliberately
rejected by a combination composed of small
fraction of the delegates from the seventeen Demo
cratic States and very large majority OF the dele
gates of the remaining sixteen States; and
resolution adopted in its stead simply reaifrm-
ing the principles of the Cincinnati platform,
without or Jhe rTRf the
purpose of enabling the Democratic party to wage
battle with some chance of success in certain
Northern and Western States, by presenting to the
people as its doctrines principles openly and ex-
pressly repudiated by majority of the Democratic
State delegations, and by majority approaching
unanimity of the Democratic electoral votes of the
Union. The delegations of eight States, together
with portion of that of Delaware, faithful adhe
rents of our party and firm supporters of its
principles, thus, by sheer force of votes cast
by delegates from States that will certainly vote
for the Republican candidates, compelled to with
draw from the Convention, because, in the Ian
guage of disting uished delegate, they felt "that
it was burning imputation upon the honor and
patriotism of the party. that, claiming to be
tiona, and claiming to have principles for its
guide it should acknowledge for its declaration of
faith a creed upon which are placed two distinctly
opposite interpretations by its own advocates" We
connot refrain from expressing admiration and
approval of this lofty manifestation of adherence
to principle rising superior to all considerations of
eXpediency to all trammels of party, and looking
with single eye to the defence of the constitution
al rightes of the States. The delegations of other
Democratic States however, (incuding few dele
gates from the seeding States not less faithful
in devotion to principles, were more hopeful of OBJ
tanning from their brethren some satisfactory re-
c0gnition of sound principles, and decided on
remaining in the Convention after distinctly
declaring, however, their determination also to
withdraw II their just expectations should be dis
appointed. 1t is thus apparent that thare was
almost entire unanimity of principle in the dele
cations of the only States on which absolute
reliance be placed for Democratic electoral
votes, whilst there existed diversity of opinion as
to the line of policy best calculated to the
triumph of those principles. Nor is matter of
surprise that in nuncture so unexpected and
anomalous, when, in the enuncation of Democratic
principles, the voice of Virginia was overborne by
that of Ohio, and Louisiana and Arkansas were
forced to succumb to Vermont and Michigan, there
should be excited feelings divided counsels and
dscordant action. In the subsequent proceedings
of the Convention, however, think that distinct
intlmations may be discerned of disposition
the part of the Convention to recede from its de-
termination, and to afford, either by an amend
ment OF the platform or in some other manner
equally satisfactory, such recognition of principles
as would effectualy obviate misconstructon and
secure the harmonious action of the party and that
it was only because of these ntimations that the
delegations of the remaining Democratic States
consented to join in the ballots which took place
with no other effect than to induce adjournment
to Baltimore to the 18th June, whilst the seeding
delegations adjourned to meet at Richmond on the
I'd Monday OF the same month. On this state of
facts the path seems open for the united action of
the party, and no insuperable obstacle opposes the
restoration OF its harmony. So believing, we in
sist that our position representatives OF Demo-
cratic States and constituencies forms Just bar
to our right, but rather imposes the duty, of
joining our counses with those of our Democratic
brethren, and uniting in their efforts to the
triumph of our principles. 1t is plain that, if the
Convention shall at Baltimore adopt satisfactory
platform of principles before proceeding to select
M
ceased, and no motive will remain for refusing to
unite with their sister States for holding ad-
jOurned meeting at Richmond. On the other hand if
the Convention, reassembling at Baltimore
shall disappont the just expectations of the re-
naming Democratic States, their delegations
not fail to withdraw and unite with the eight States
which have adjourned to Richmond. In either
event there would be unanimous action in support
OF our principles by all the States which be
relied on for casting Democratic electoral votes.
From this statement of facts, is it not evident that
the wise and prudent course now to be pursued by
the delegations of the eight States is to defer as
sembling in Richmond until the necessity for such
meeting shall become imperative? Ought thew
not in view OF the already altered condition of af
fairs, to return to the Convention at Baltimore and
aid their sister States in the struggle for the re-
cognltiOn of sound Democratic principles? Nav it
not be that their votes would now suffice to turn
the scale, to purge the party creed of all heresies
and to emblazon on the party banner its honored
device OF fidelity to the Constitution and the Union
in characters so clear to defy misconstruction?
Suppose for moment that in this last struggle for
the right they should again be oyerbOrne: Ia it
not then, equally plain that the delegations of the
other Democratic States cannot for an instant be
suspected OF an intention to refuse to redeem their
pledge of withdrawal from an assemblape which
shall persistently determine on the sacrifice of
principle which they themselves have declared in
dispensable for their united action to supposed
eXpediency? And will not all the Democratic
States thus Withdrawing and adjourning to Rich
mond be joined by the true and faithful delegates
from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, from Indiana
and New ork-aye, from every of our sister
States where delegates are found imbued with the
living principles of our party but whose voice has
hitherto been stihed in the Convention because of
their being in the minority of their respective del
egations? For it is striking fact not to be over
looked in this connection, that whether the vote
had been taken entirely by States or by delegates,
in either event there clear majority in the
Convention in favor the recognition ofsound
constitutional principles, and it only by taking
part OF the votes by States as units, and another
part by divided States, that apparent and facti
tlous majority succeeded in preventing that recog-
milton. The answer to all the foregoing questions
seems to to be clear and plain. The line of con-
duct we suggest leads, in our Judgment to a
Cancellation of difference, basis of principle.
1t leads to the united and harmonious ac-
ton of our party. 1t does more, infinitely more
1t vastly added strength to that assertion
of principles which none of us for an instant think
of compromising; it compels their recognition and
proudly vindicaes the action of the seeding dele
gates, who will thus have secured the object of
their struggle, and have merted the applause and
gratitude of their Democratic brethren. The con-
trary course would, We believe, be productive of
consequences. Time does not permit
the action of the regular organizations of our party
in the respective States, and who alone have the
power to speak their WILL to meet in council and
give instructions to their delegations. How is the
voice OF California or of Oregon to be heard in
time? How are the constituencies of Texas and
Virginia to meet in State Conventions and give
authoritative expression of their will before the
middle of June? How Can the machinery be put in
motion by which the Democratic voters will direct
attendance at Baltimore or Richmond in accordance
with their judgment? Evidently, this cannot be
done. Evidently, the delegations already elected
are the only that act and they must act ON
their own judgment in a conjuncture which does
not allow opportunity for instruction by their
constituencies refusal, then, by the delegates
of the seeding States to return to Baltimore a
refusal to defer the Richmond meeting until there
shall be uncomfortable necessity for holding it.
would inevitably result in incurabe division of our
party, the sole conservative organization remain
ing in our country in its final disruption; worse
than all in the endangering of the successful asser-
ton OF its principles, compared with which the sue
cess OF single electoral struggle is unworthy of
one moments consideration.-R. W. johnson. A.
lverson, John Slidell, Jefferson Davis, L. O. c. La
mar, Martin j. Crawford, Peter E. Love, John J.
= y ones, James Jackson John W. H. Underwood, NJ.
H. H. Garnett X. Toombs, w. K. Sebastian R. NJ
1. Hunter, j. NJ. Mason, }. p. BENJAMIN. Lueius I
Gartrell, John ii. Reagan, Jno. r. Morrison.
NEWSPAPER POSTAGE TO DEALERs-A bill is he
fore the House of Representatives at Washington