The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-08-29
Breckenridge. Guthrie. Doug


instance of Mr.. Hodge, the question was then
propounded from the Chair, whether the no.
mination of Douglas should or should not be,
without further ceremony, the unanimous act
of the Convention, and Of all the delegates pre-
sent; the Chairman distinctly requesting that
any delegate who objected whether or not
having voted) should signify his dissent. No
delegate dissented and thus, at last, was
Stephen A. Douglas UNANIMOUSLY nominated
in Convention representing more than two
thirds of all the electoral votes, as the candi-
date OF the Democratic party for the Presiden-
cy of the United States.
Was it irregular thus to propose candidate?
If so. Lewis Cass was irregularly nominated
at Baltimore, in 1848, which no man ever
pretended, for the same method was adopted
in his case"
First. 1t is not true that General Cass was
nominated, in 1848, in similar manner
Such procedure, the nomination of candi-
date by resolution prior to his receiving two
thirds of the vote Of the Convention, where
there was a contest, never before was wit
messed In national Democratic Convention.
This resolution was another innovation upon
Democratic usages.
Second. 1t is not true that the Chairman
AOtl1Cu tAC dCiCt5atCc bA1at bi1OSC WHO ulu uOE
object should be counted as voting for the re-
solution. No published proceedings of that
Convention puts any such remark into his
mouth, On rthe contrary, every published
proceeding, including those published at the
time in the Baltimore, Washington and New
York papers, reported by different reporters,
conclusiVely demonstrates that he gave utter
ance to no such language. But even if he
~ I'll
in the scope of his duties as q presiding off,
Ger, to dictate to delegates what course they
should pursue, or to bind them by his mere
ipse dirit. Each delegate had the right to
vote, as to him seemed proper; and Of this he
was the sole judge, answerable for his course
to his constituency alone. The Convention
had decided that, in accordance with the es-
tablished usages ofthe party, it required two
thirds (202 yotes) of the electoral votes to
nominate. The highest vote at any time at
tanned by Mr.. Douglas was 1917, and the
whole number cast 1876. How were 202 votes
1876 votes all told, 1411a of which were cast
against him p?
Eighteen delegates remained in the Con:
vention as spectators, taking no part whatso-
ever in its deliberations, and expressly declar-
ing that they were not bound by its decision.
Various devices were tried to compel these
18 delegates to vote. Mr.. Church of N. Y,
had offered a resolution declaring Mr. Doug
las the nominee. when he had received only
173H votes. We quote the following pro-
ceedings which then ensued
"The question was loudly called for.
''Mr. Jones, Of Pennsylvania, said he was
ready to support the nominee Of the Conyen-
ton 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 was necessary to . nominal
ton.
at was objected that debate was not in
order
esTha psss;aest Mr.. Foeitioo 30 rufed.
: Mr.. Jones raised a question of order-that
The rule adopted at Charleston could not be
repealed except on one days notice.
"Mr. Church explained the action at Charles
on, and said his resolution was intended to
,hange the rule of instruction adopted at
Charleston. New York had come here to |
,our oil on the troubled waters, and had |
aithfully endeayored to do SO. They had |
Tielded everything except personal honor to |
zeal the divisions which existed. BE pro- |
;eeded to condemn the action Of the seeding
lelegates
"Mr. W. S. Cuttings, of Maryland, entered
protest against the propositions Of Mr.. Church |
# New York A rule was adopted at Charles
on that o-thirds Of all the votes of the
Electoral college was required to nominate q
andidate for President.
"The Chair explained, that at Charleston
ne then president was instructed not to de-
lare any one nominated unless he received /
wo-thirds Of the votes Of the electoral college.
202 yotes.)
4Mr. Cuttings said there were two-thirds of the
ectoral college here, and if gentlemen voted
Tho declined to vote, Douglas would be nomi-
ated by two third vote. He hoped there
'ould be more ballots to see what gen.
emen would do, and that Mr.. Church would
'ithdraw his resolution.
ACries Of That's it--thats it-yes-yes.,
SMr. Hodge, of Virginia, said he hoped
here would be no more ballots, and if these
entlemen who declined to vote did not vote,
e should treat them as out Of the Conyen-
on.
"Mr. Church then withdrew bis resolution
II another ballot was had"
Yet, after this notice served upon these 18
slegates, they again refused to vote and it
simply ridiculous to say that the President
,uld record their votes as cast in favor of the
Mr.. Church boldly declared that
Ie resolution tUas intended to change tie rule
'instrnzioa adopted at Charleston, . requiring
two-thirds vote to nominate the candidate.
OF the Is delegates who remained in the
invention as spectators, five were from Ken
cky, six from Delaware, and seven from
issouri. I,