Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1860-07-05
From the New York Day Book.


Mr. Douglas, true to his recent course of misrepre
sentng public men and events has in his letter of &C
cepance given renewed evidence of this unfortunate
habit We give the following paragraph as specimen
He says:
Upon looking the proceedings of the Convention al
So find that the nomination great unanim
NY N ns presence and totth the CONCURRENCE Of than
co.u1TdS % uee tohote number OF delegates and exact
9ccorddnce oo the long established usdgeS of the por INV
not to be candidate nor accept
nominee OF the national Democratic party that case
only upon the condition that the sdgeS well as the nrin
cpes of the party should be strictly adhered to- has been
proclaimed for long tme and become well known to the
oy the free and voluntary action of the Democratic
ana their faithful representatives, without any agency in
and duty to accept the nomination,
NOW, there were but 1882 votes cast the last bal
lot, OF which Mr.. Douglas received 1917. Suppose
that the whole 1888 concurred in Mr.. Douglas nOm
natlon-Whch Is not the caseyet what becomes of his
assertion that twothirds of the whole number of dele
gates assented to his nomination. of the great una
nlmlty of which he speaks, when a majority of the
delegates of than half the States had Withdraw
IRON the Convention 1t is quite objectionable for
pubic man to indulge In such bold assertions Firth
ermore he tells that his nomination was secured in
exact accordance with the long established rules of the
party The rules and usages Of the party always have
been that the regular delegations from State elected
In pursuance of call of the State Democratic Commit
tee should be received. But how it in the case of
Alabama? Why, just the reverse. The acknowledged
democracy of Alabama were denied admttance and
delegation elected by meeting called together of
all parties allowed seats in Democratic Conven
ton. And this delegation was headed by MIR. L. E.
Parsons man who has never to this day voted the
Democratic ticket, eUen for Constable! This was well
KNOWN and not even attempted to be denied. Is this
according to Democratic usage, Mr.. Douglass Why,
then insult the intelligence of the public with such
statement?
We might 60 on and show multitude of departures
from Democratic usage by the Douglas Convention
The admission of Pierre Soule man fresh from the
Known othng party and elected by s1-called Demo-
cratic cub in New Orleans the expulsion of Mr. Hal
let, of Mass, for the sole and only crime of not being
Douglas man-these, and many more instances which
might be glVen prove most concusvey that the Con-
venon which nominated Mr.. Douglas was an irregular
unauthorized body of men, and their action was entirely
without binding force When it went contrary to Dem
ocratic usage, it longer Democratic Conven-
ton, and when majority Of States had left the hail. it
was simply sectional gathering, and the President,
Gen. Cushing very properly refused to have anything
more to do with such anarchal body. Mr.. Douglas
has materially weakened his already desperate fortunes
by this unprecedented letter.
The remainder of it is not important 1t is the same
old story Of" non-interventiOn almost thread
bare, but which, like everything that Mr. touches he
does not fairly state. The doctrine of noninterventon
is just the opposite of the Wilmot Provso, and
body North and South is still in favor of it. But non
Intervention never meant as Mr.. Douglas Claims that
property should not be protected 1t meant that
government should abdicate its duties and leave the
property of citizens in the federal Territories to the
ces OF mob. 1t simp y meant that Congress should
not undertake. by legislation, to determine the future
situations of Territory but protecting all alike leave
that question to be determined by the people when they
first meet together in sovereign capacity This is rea
popular soveregnty-this is true non-interVention.