Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-08

,nvention, refused to take their seats; but ie of them MT. Gaulden, however. me into the convention, but did not pre- nd to vote. because, under the decision of le convention, he was n, entitled to vote. s' the majority had determined not to take leir seats in the convention. And yet these are the persons decided by he convention to be mere spectators, and not delegates; who had no right to vote, and never did vote in the convention, who are now represented as delegates by the Douglas committee, and pressed into the service, for the purpose of manufacturing two-third vote for MT. Douglas
 ARKANSAS.
 Under the decision of the convention, the two delegates, Messrs. Flournoy and Stir man, who remained in the convention at Charleston, were allowed to cast one vote the three bogus delegates from the first Con- gresslonal district, one vote; and the with drawing delegates who were reaccredited to Baltimore, two votes. The latter declined to take their seats, and MT. Stirman with drew
 He.is thus reported
 "Mr. Stirman, of Arkansas, when his State was called, said, in justice to himself, and with sorrow he parted with the convention, he could no longer remain after what had been done'
 Thus majority of the delegates actu- ally admitted to the convention had with drawn or refused to take their seats and, under the unit rule, the minority had no right to vote. Yet the committee have counted both the } vote of Mir Stirman. who had withdrawn, increased the one vote awarded by the convention to the bogus three, to vote and half, and thus secur- ed an additional vote from Arkansas in fa- vor of the resolution. In this way the Douglas committee got six additional votes from Georgia and one from Arkansas in favor of the resolution, thus increasing their figures from 205 to PIP votes.
 ACTUAL VOTE CAST FOR MIR. DOUGLAS.
 We now propose to show, beyond cavil, that even the vote (1814) given by the Douglas Executive Committee in the fore going table, as having been cast for MT. Douglas, is based on error. Let us exam inc the matter.
 Massachusetts is put down at 10 votes for Mir. Douglas when they were only ten delegates entitled to cast five votes remain ing in the convention from that State Massachusetts had thirteen votes, repre- sented by 26 delegates; sixteen of these delegates withdrew, and joined the Breck- inridge and Lane convention, leaving, we repeat, but ten delegates to cast five votes.
 Vermont was represented by 10 delegates with the right to'cast five votes. She is reported as having given the whole five to Mir. Douglas, instead of 4 ], one of the del egates MT. Stoughton) having withdrawn, and joined the other convention. Minnesota is recorded as having cast her full vote for Mr. Douglas, when three of her delegates entitled to l1 votes, refused to vote for him, and withdrew from the convention:
 "Mr. Becker, of Minnesota, said he and two of his colleagues desired to announce the conclusion at which they had arrived they went to Charles ton, and came to Baltimore, actuated only by desire to promote the harmony, union, and integ rity of the democratic party; but unfortunately for them and the country, their desires and efforts had failed; they had been ready for any exerons and sacrifices to promote their object, and they now took this step, in view of the responsibilities rest ng upon them before the people. In conclusion,
 
 ats, taking with them the credentials which edited them to the national democratic conven- ln.''
 Pennsylvania is put down as having 'enty two and half votes, when 12 of delegates entitled to six votes withdrew | joined the other convention. As Penn lvania is only entitled to 27, she cast one d one-half more votes for Mr. Douglas an her delegation were entitled to.
 Virginia appears to have given 3 votes [ Mr. Douglas, when only five of her legates, entitled to ? votes, remained in convention.
 Worth Carolina had but one delegate. en- tled to cast one half vote in the conven- on, yet he is recorded as having cast one ote.
 Tennessee with only five delegates in the convention, IS put down at 3, instead of 25
 Neao York is put down at 35 votes, when 1t is we'll known that two of her dele gates withdrew from the convention, and joined the other convention.
 These make total of II votes, which added to the IS bogus delegates from Ala bama, the 12 bogus delegates from Louisi- ana, and the bogus delegates from Arkan- sas, counting 16A votes, total of 274 votes to be subtracted from the 1S11, leaving the vote of Mir. Douglas at only l54!
 FORGED VOTES.
 But even this was a forced vote-forced by violation of the usages of the demo- cratic party, by which the votes of. 31 del egates from New York, in addition to the two above alluded to, 12 from Ohio and 9 from Indiana, making total of g dele gates entitled to 26 votes. hostile to the nomination of Mr.. Douglas. were voted for Jim. Subtract these from 154, and 1t caves l2S, as the actual strength of MT. Douglas in the convention!
 Had the rules and usages of former con ventions, whereby the vote of each State was to be determined by the majority of the delegates, been followed, Mr. Douglas would have gained vote in Maine, 25 votes in Connecticut, and lost 10 in Massachu- setts, 2 in New Jersey, 10 in Pennsylva- nia, 2 in Maryland, in Virginia, 1 in North Carolina. II in Arkansas, 4 in Missouri, 3 in Tennessee, in Kentucky, making net loss of 371 to which add the votes of Alabama 9, and Louisiana 6, rep resented by the bogns delegates, who would not then have gained admission into the convention and we have 52l votes to be deducted from 1Slt, leaving l29 as the true vote under the rule of former conventions, really cast for MT. Douglas in the conven- tion.
 CONVENTION AT THE MAINLAND INSTITUTE.
 1055 votes were cast for President to which must be added ] vote from Minne- sota, votes from Delaware, and 8 votes from South Carolina, who took no part in the nomination of Mir. Douglas, and who before either convention adjourned indorsed the action of the Maryland Institute con vention, making in all ll7 votes.
 This number has been since largely in creased by the indorsement of delegates qfler the adjournment of the convention, who took no part in the proceedings of either, or who, having taken part in the Douglas convention, have since repudiated its action.
 Thus neither convention has presented a