The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-06-21

While it is still matter of doubt whether the
Democratic Convention will keep together long
enough TO make Nomination, it may appear
premature to consider who the Candidate of the
Party should be. 1t would, indeed be idle to
raise the question: if it were not perfectly certain
that nomination of some sort will be made in
this city before the delegates to the present Con-
vention leave for their homes. There will be no
going to Richmond for the purpose. The dele
gates to the Richmond Conventon-the represen-
tatves of the whole Party, North and South-are
here. The only question is, shall there be one
nomination or two? We have deprecated the
latter event as q serious national calamity We
have declared our opposition to the extreme pre-
tensions of both factions in tie Convention, and
proclaimed willingness to support any con-
sentative and moderate man, who should be able
to unite the Party-without Platform. We
have gone one step further. We have stated
distinctly our conviction that Mr.. DOUGLAS is not
that man. Without entering into the consdera-
ton of his public career or private character,
and without reference to his views upon the sub
ject of Territorial Sovereignty, which led to
his breach with the Administration, we
have made the decided and uncompromising
hostility which is manifested towards him at the
South, and which is shared by many at the
North, a sufficient reason for opposing his nomi-
nation. We are unable TO appreciate the policy
or good sense of nominating man who cannot
be elected We cannot see the wisdom or glory
of suffering defeat with one candidate, when victory
is possible with another who may be equally good.
And as we believe the success of the Democratic
Party to be more important than the election of
Mr.. DOUGLAS, so we believe that within its ranks
the Democratic Party has many candidates as
good as be. As we recognize the exclusive claims
of no man to the Presidency-no mans right of
property in the nomination-we have no difficulty
in referring TO the namcs of several gentlemen,
the selection of any one of whom would, we be-
lieve give satisfaction TO the Party and command
the entire confidence of the country. The single
State Of New York can present three such names
the Hon. DANIEL S. DICKINSON, Governor SEY-
MoUR, and Judge NELSON. Why not nominate
one of these, any one of whom the South would
willingly accept and support without Platform
instead of urging at the imminent hazard of
breaking up the Party the nomination of a man
who is himself the most Objectionable Platform to
the South that can be named Towards Mr..
DOUGLAS personally we entertain no hostility
We have always done justice to his capacity
and patriotism. We have never joined in the
warfare which has been waged against him
we have always deprecated the attempts which
have been made to drive him out of the
Party-and we have admired the pluck and
energy with which he has maintained himself
against the assaults of his enemies But we do
not therefore feel bound to support him for the
Presidency in the face Of certain defeat, or desire
to see the Democratic Party sacrificed for the vim
dication of his democracy. We had rather take
some one else for our candidate-some one with
whom there would be a better prospect of
success in the coming contest-a better chance
of defeating the allied powers of sectonalism and
fanaticism. In naming three distinguished New
Workers, we do not mean to exclude from consd-
Grafton other prominent men whose claims are
before the country, and to whom, if nominated,
we might be able to give the same confident sup
port which we should render to either of those we
have mentioned. But it is the very multiplicity
of candidates that has presented the most serious
obstacle to a combination among the opponents of
Mr.. DOUGLAS in favor of some one man. We cam
not commend therefore, too highly the course of
Senator JOHNSON, of Tennessee, in Withdrawing
voluntarily his name from the competition, and
thus releasing the delegation from his State from
any obligation to prefer his claims. The delegates
from Virginia and Kentucky profess to be under
similar obligations toward Senator HUNTER and
Mr.. GUTHRIE. This is greatly to be regretted
not that we should except in the slightest degree
to the nomination of either of those gentlemen
but because the persistent adhesion of any delega-
ton to the fortunes of any candidate is but the
repetition, a smaller scale, of the identical fault
which we impute to the partisans of Mr.. DOUGLAS
1t is carrying personal preferences to an undue
length, at time when all personal preferences
should be sacrificed for the common good