Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-08

ner. Such procedure, the nomination o1 candidate by resolution prior to his receiv- l ing thirds of the vote of the convention, where there was a contest. never before was witnessed in national democratic conven- tion. This resolution was another innova- tion upon democratic usages.
 Second. It is not true that the chairman notified the delegates that those who did not object should be counted as voting for the resolution. No published proceedings of that convention puts any such remarks into his mouth. On the contrary, every pub lished proceeding, including those publish ed at the time in the Baltimore, Washing. ton, and New York papers, reported by dis ferent reporters, conclusively demonstrat ; that he gave utterance to no such langua, :. But, even if he did, it was not in his pow :, and was not within the scope of his dut $ as presiding officer, to dictate to delega $ what course they should pursue, or to bi d them by his mere ipse dirt. Each delega @ had the right to vote, or not to vote, as , him seemed proper; and of this he was u ' sole judge, answerable for his course to hi constituency alone. The convention Ina decided that, in accordance with the esta ished usages of the party, it required two thirds 1902 votes) of the electoral votes nominate. The highest vote at any tim attained by MT. Douglas was 1S14 and th whole number cast l96. How were 20 votes for Mr. Douglas to be manufacture out of 196 votes all told, 14t of which wer' cast against him?
 Eighteen delegates remained in the con- vention as spectators, taking no part what soever in it's deliberations, and expressly declaring that they were not bound by its decision Various devices were tried to compel these IS delegates to vote. MT. Church of N. Y, had offered a resolution declaring Mr.. Douglas the nominee, when he had receive only 173A votes. We quote the following proceedings which then en- sued:
 "The question was loudly called for. Mir. Jones, of Pennsylvania, said he was ready to support the nominee of the convention when he shall be nominated by the rules of the democratic party. At Charleston it was determined that two thirds of all the electoral college necessary to a nomination.
 
 The president lMr. Todd) so ruled. Mir. Jones raised the question of order-that the rule adopted at Charleston could not be repealed except on one days notice.
 MT. Church explained the action at Charleston, and said his resolution intended to change the rule of instruction adopted at Charleston. New York had come here to pour oil on the troubled | waters, and had faithfully endeavored to do so.- They had yielded everything except personal honor to heal the divisions which existed. He proceeded to condemn the action of the seeding delegates. MT. w. s. Gittings, of Marvland entered pro- test against the propositions of Mr. Church. of New | York A rule was adopted at Charleston that two thirds of all the votes of the electoral college was required to nominate candidate for President. | The chair explained, that at Charleston the then | president was instructed not to declare any one nominated unless he received two-thirds of the votes of the electoral college, (202 votes.) Mr. Gttings said there were two thirds of the l electoral college here and if gentlemen voted who declined to vote, Douglas would be nominated by a two-third vote He hoped there would be more | ballots to see what gentlemen would do, and that MT. Church would withdraw his resolution. | Cries of that's it-that's it-yes-yes
 Mr. Hoge. of Viaginia, said he hoped there would be no more ballots, and if those gentlemen who de clined to vote did not vote, he should treat then as out of the convention.
 Mr. Church then withdrew his resolution til another ballot was had.'
 Yet, after this notice served upon these | IS delegates, they again refused to vote and it is simply ridiculous to say that the president could record their votes as cast in favor of the resolution. Mir. Church boldly declared that the resolution acas n, Tended to change the rule ot instruction adop- ted at Charleston" requiring a two-thirds vote to nominate the candidate.
 Of the Is delegates who remained in the convention as spectators, five were from Kentucky, six from Delaware, and seven from Missouri.
 The five delegates from Kentucky filed 8 written protest, in which they stated thai though they remained in the convention they "wiW not participate in its delibera- tions, nor hold ourselves or our constituents bound 5y ts action, but leave both at full l liberty to act as future circumstances may dictate;" (signed by G. A. Caldwell, w w. Williams, w. Bradley, Samuel B Field, and Thos. J. Young.) | Mr. Salisbury, of Delaware, announced in behalf of the six delegates from his State who remained in the convention, but refus ed to vote, that |" in future they should de cline to uote, reserving to themselves the right to act hereafter as they deemed pro per-"
 The seven delegates from Missouri gave notice that they would remain in the con. venton, but would take no part in it's de Alterations. And these are the votes upor which this committee base their twothirc vote for MT. Douglass!
 NO OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO DISSENT FROM THI
 RESOLUTION NOMINATING MIR. DOUGLAS.
 But even admitting that the President die give notice that those who did not objec shoald be counted in favor of the resolu ton; even admitting the proposition tha his mere ipse dirH had the power to bnc the delegates who lid notdissent, even in tn, face of their declarations that they would no vote, we now proceed to show that no op portunity was afforded to any delegate tc object to the passage of the resolution The extract of the proceedings which WI have heretofore quoted, shows that debat upon this resolution was decided to be ou of order; and under the ruling Mr. Jones of Pennsylvania, who rose to enter hi dissent, was unceremoniously ly gagged. Hay ing thus closed mouths, this committee con tends that because they did not then speak they must be counted as having voted fo the resolution.
 By no rule of justice or of right can thu l4a votes given for MT. Breckinridge anc Mr. Guthrie be counted as having been cas for the resolution declaring Mr. Dougla the nominee. Having steadily. througl repeated ballots, voted against MT. Doug las, they were not allowed to object to tn resolution when it was offered, nor ever given the opportunity of voting against it Here are the proceedings at this stage:
 "Mr. Clarke then moved to declare Stephen A Douglas the democratic nominee for the Presidency | Applause.
 Mir. lIoge, of Virginia, offered a resolution t that effect, which was read.
 | The resolution declaring S. A. Douglas the unan imous choice of the vention for the Presidenc was adopted by shout of ayes and cheers, whic lasted considerable time.
 The band of the Keystone Club appeared in tn | gallery and struck up tune, which was greete with renewed cheers.
 | The President (Col. Todd) declared Stephen Douglas, of Illinois, the unanimous choice of ' democracy of the United States as their candid for the Presidency. Loud cheers.']
 The vote in tavor of the resolution u , |