Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1860-07-12
FAYETTEVILLE, TlkY: sFHURSDlY, JUly@i2,-beo.

;. Thirdly: We reneined ia the Cor
] vention becaass Virgins, North Caro-
lima, Kentucky, Maryland, Missour
: and part of Delawsre, with oe
, ! friends in California, Oregon. Ne,
: York, PennsylyaDis and other State
: deemed it most expsdient to do So
; and we thought their opinion entilIs,
: to great weight Lastly: We did no
: believe it possible that eemineerin,
majority in the North and Eas
would finally unite on the nomination
Of Judge Douglas, and thus euergiz,
the simple failure 10 enunciate {
principle into an absolute snd tsta
abandonment Of it. We deemed il
it probable that if the Platfurm va,
kept ia It's shOrn condition that we
would De allowed TO plsce, as our
candidates, persons who had reeog.
nlzed in thsir action our intsrpreta.
ton Of the Cincinnati Platform. and
thus at least have some heed given
to. the opinion of the Supreme Court
Of the United States in the case OF
Drsd Scott. We were further as-
surtd and this assurance was veri.
fed) that by construction of the
two-third rule to be given BY ths
Coo vention, the vote OF the absent
Ststes could be entered against Judge
! Douglas. sa
In conjunction With North Carolina,
Virginia, Maryland sed Kentucky
We offered the resolution just recited
in the full spiris Of harmony and con.
lcession. 1t WAS drawn by member
pof the New York Delegation, and,
as We we're Informed aud believed, j.,
met their appreciation. Its consider
alton was wsiyed for time as it was
tthcn out OF order. but We were again
assured it would be considered aad
adopted before a 6nsl adjournment OF
the Convention. We proceeded 10
ballot for a candidate for ih. Prssi-
deney; we nominated Hon. Andrew
lJohuson as our candidate and voted
for him asa unit three or loor times;
one District then deserted bim and
voted for Judge Douglas. The re-
nsinder of US voted for Sir johnson
81 times sud as we rscsiyed no ae-
cessien- TO eur candidate, except one
vote from Minnesots, We then deemed
lit our duty as patriots to withdraw
his name, aud vote for the candidate
of our views who presented TIE
greatest prospect Of success. We
decided to vote for Hon, James
Guthrie, of Kentucky, be then being
in the position Of the foremost csudi-
date before the convention next to
Judge Douglas.
You sre aware that nc result could
fiually be attained at Charleston, and
we we're compelled to adjourn to
Baltimore, Judge Douglas on two
or thee bsllotings at Charleston. re-
ceiyed 1921 votes. being a majority
of the whole EIectoral College, but
be never received two-tbirds Of Che
Whole rote actually cast in our bal
lets, much less two-tbirds Of the
whole Electoral College. His friends
contsnded that IS be had majority
he was entitled to be declared the
candidate Of the party, and they
cited Us to bis defamation in favor Of
Mr. Buchanan four. years since un-
der similar circumstances We ut |
terry deny tbe truth Of this princi.
pie or The force Of the precedent
1t hes lepg been a conceded rule in
the National Democratic Convention
that twe-thirds shall be required tor
"a nomination. and, We are informed
that Judge Douglas assisted in a.
stringent application Of this rule to
Mr.. Van Buren, in 1914, and al
though Mr.. Van Buren bad a clearly
defined majority, he was at last ruled
of and beaten before the Conyen-
ton of that year. The rule was
olesrly intended for the protection Of
q minority against the election Of
a candidate odious to them, although
very acceptable to the msjority.-
AS all parties are obliged to be near
ly harmonious in order to secure an.
election, it is. therefore, very impor-
tspt to procure person least odious
to the greatest number. and We msy
remark that such was the precise ef-
feet of the rule in 1874 AID
in 1852, when We were successful IN
our elections. If,it be true that a
candidate who receives majority Of
The Electolal College is then entitled,
as matter Of right, to receive, the