Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1860-08-04
Ckafrr,.P+- IIs,aAarltIe -Strt4- GeAt,.l (R0.tlts

y.
ChHfy-v.fn- lIs'aAhs4laA- LeTtt.l G.D.0.tls..-
fRcc.ivcd at le o'clock, MI
Mr.. E.nhan offered the t,iowing resolutions
which were unanimously adopted:
WHEREAS, The Democrats State Central Com
m,trc - California met IN Monday, the Both day Of
July. l-5', there being present Joseph i. lloGe,
chairman, md tlIrty.Sx urUbers Of the committee:
Ahi Ud.rtIs, after due r.;iniIation and DISCUSS
ion of business. thr Committee, by resolution reg
ularly passed, adjourned 70 meet again On Tuesday
morning, Inv %lst. ut l" O'clock
AMI, her. ~, the said 3 lat Of July. the Com
tRtttcc having assembled at lnoclock. the chairman
not being present, a committee Of three WAS up
pointed t" infrm him that the Committee was us
Scmhlr4 and ra1v to.Pr'.ceea to business, and de
sired his attendance. and tho Committee IN writing
informed N" Chairman thereof;
.4ai, Ui1ots, the SAID ,Iu>cph j. Hugc. in an
aver, addressed mot" 20 the said Committee, dcsig
mating The SAID State Central Committee 80" "a nor
ti"n Of tho State Central Committee, and declining
further to With said Committee; now, therefore.
lie il
H.s,'r.| Nv the Democratic State Central Com
m,trc 81 Ct,fruia:
]. That the place of Chairman "f the State Cen
hal COMMITTEE is vacant by the refusal ~ the said
Joseph l.. lI0gr To act such, and that this Com
TnitiCc dI elect chairman
;. That the correspondence between said Joseph
p Hnyc and H." committee appointed Ia address
him. be pnbllsh"d with all the other proceedings Of
the Democratic State Central Committee.
The resolutions "f Mr. l.ndley we're then taken
W ssrioti. and the first. md, third and fourth
adnpted--the fifth was tabled.
On motion Of Mr.. Van VOORHEES,, n committee Of
sI--c insisting If MesyrS. Van NunrhirS, t;rlwcks.
Fr""r, HAYES. Powell und GonS!i-w"s appointed To
,,ir | ft;i ~, 81 80. aid '! "
III ,,', =" "e" t Wv "''I .''an Wv
..,nI,I,, 't "u" '' H. ,., r.,r,"d 80
adopted:
ApDREs~ or THE DEMOCRATIC STAIR CENTRAL COMMIT
TIE To- THE DEMOCRACY W cALIYpRNIA.
Inflow DEuocRA1S: II il not ut all strange that
in th. nre.pnt onnm.lu. condition Of noli,ical af.
fairs The unrstinn on every hand should arise
"What is the course proper To- be pursued bv Dem
ocrai.. III the unfortunate distractions aud divisions
which now threaten the party:" In ATTEMPTING the
solution Of this nportant u;es,ion It is impossible
10 arrive at any lust concluaOn without entering at
some length upon the consideration Of many If the
peculiar circumstances bearing upon and involving
The action Of the Convention al Charleston aud Bal
tmore Before doing 40, however, it may not be
point we view the two nominations -cuch profess
ing to be Observation-Disclosures and perplexities
arise on every side and il behOves not only every
Democrat, but every lover Of his country, to pause
aud consider WELL lest bv prccipitate action we not
merely destroy the Democracy, the great cnnServa-
tor 0f the Union. but the Cniun itself. Deeply a.
deplore the existing condition Of political affairs
have our own clear con lotions Of ultimate duty,
both as partisuns and as citizens. Without crimi-
nation or recriminaton-which would assuredly be
ont OF place hcre-we desire, as briefly az may be-
to present and commend 10 every candid mind IA
fair statement Of the facts which seem 10 lead To the
irresistible conclusion that the nomination Of Judge
Douglas was neither regular aud in accordance with
the usages Of the partv nor in anv hummer binding
upon the National Democracy. In the first place, "a
careful examination Of the record will show that the
Douglas. or. so called minority platform. was not
adopted bv either a majority OF the States or ma
orty Of the individuals comprising the origua |
Charleston Convention. II would seem to be a fair
proposition, that the resolutions Of the National
Democracy, to be obligatory, should be adopted
either by majority Of the States or of the delegates
constituting the Convention, and that any other
course would be manifrSty unfair and unjust IN the
whole party throughout the Union. Now, what are
the facts?
At an early stage Of the proceedings, the Conn
mttce on Organization closed their report by offer
ing the following additional rule which, although
containing the germ Of disruption, was quietly aud
unsuspectngly adopted by the Convention
"RSSoirsd, That in any State which has not pro-
vdrd or directed BY its State Convention how its
vote may be given, the Convention will recognize
the right OF each delegate to cast his individual
vote"
Under ordinary circumstances there could be little
objection ia such n ruIe which ,r,n, rI,, anncn -
not unfair. But it was soon evident that this new
regulation was part Of u well laid programme, dcS-
tined not merely To cramp but actually To prevent
the deliberate action Of tho Convention. Some
States had passed general and at the time appa-
rently meaningless resolution, recommending or
directing the delegation to vote as unit while by
far the greater number had omitted entirely such
action. The result therefore, Of the rule was found
to be that in those delegations where the friends Of