Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-08-17
MIR. Doug,as, Nomination.

The DOUGLAS men are considerably exercised
about the regularity of their nominations. Facts
are stubborn things.
The President of the Cnvention determined at
Charleston on question of privilege, raised by Mr..
Howard, that required twothirds of the electoral
vote (2O2) in favor of any candidate to make
a nomination, and the convention sustained the de-
csion of the chair The whole vote was 3O3. There
were two ballots at Baltimore, which were as fol-
lows: 1st ballot-for DoUGIAs 1881 all others III
total l9I.
This was after the withdrawal of the President
of the convention and the other delegates who Sece
ded. Mr.. ToDD, then presiding officer, DOUGLAS
man, announced the vote, and declared that no one
having receired 2O2 uOteS, the number necessary to
choice, there q1dS ROBliadtiOn. There was then
second ballot, and the vote stood: I'd baliot-for
DOUGLAS 1914 all others 10; total I944. I'D
No one yet having received POP votes the DoUG-
LAS presiding officer declared that there was no
nomination. Then it was that resolution was
passed without call of the vote by States, declar
ing that Mr.. DOUGLAS having received two-thirds of
all the votes cast not all the Convention undn
nlollSly nominated HtwOthirds of those cast nomi-
mated him, he was nominated on the first ballot
What necessity for second? Would it not have been
in better taste to have left the unanimously out
of the resolution and let the vote upon it show
whether not it was unanimously passed But if
the resolution had received every vote that was
acting with and felt bound by the action of the
Convention it would not have received the neces-
sary two-thirds. The full vote participating in the
Convention as shown by the second ballot, only
1851. Judge OoUGIAs assumption that he received
more than two-thrds of the whole number of dele |
gates 202, cannot be sustained by counting the vote
from Delaware and two and half from Kentucky, !
which remained but refused participate in any of
the proceedings or to be bound by its action. This
assumption is lamentably weak when TIE char
ac.er of portion of that lg44 votes is understood
Tennessee on that ballot cast three votes for Mr.
DoUGLAs when there only three delegates in the
from Tennessee, each delegate being en-
titled to only one half vote under the rules and
usages of the convention the three delegates one
and half votes Massachusetts, cast ten votes in
the same way when she was only entitled to five
Minnesota cast four when she was only entitled to
% Vermont five when she was only entitled to AZ.
Deduct l! from Tennessee, five from Massachu-
sets, u from Minnesota, from Vermont total 81.
and deduct that from 1914 and we have only ls6 Is
the total vote of the convention But that is still
further to be reduced by deducting nine for the
bogus delegates from Alabama, six for those from
louisiana one from Arkansas, one-half from Massa-
chusetts and from Missouri total II, which de-
lucted from lS6 leaves l69 Then deduct still fur
Their from this l69 the twenty-five thirty votes
from New York and other States that were against
Mr.. DOUGLAS, but which were forced to be cast for
aim under the unit rule trick, " and Mr.. DOUGLAS
instead of having two-thirds of the electoral votes
n the convention, had less than onehalf of them
50 much for the regularity of Mr.. DoUGLAs nominal
ion s-frr .e r-.a.r
While the DOUGLAS followers boast much of the
regular nomination of their candidate for the Presi
lency, a word do they say about the nomins
ion of their present candidate for the Vice Presi
Ieney, They ara at a loss themselves to know how
got the ticket History tells that he accept
d the nomination in the dining of the National
Iotel at Washington. We suppose that makes him, 1
n their estimation, NATIONAL candidate. sos !