The Shasta courier., 1860-07-28
Who are the Regular Democratic Nom.
inees!

Who are the Regular Democratic Nom.
iness.
The boilers say, in excuse for their renega-
dism, that the "usages of the party" were vio-
lated in the nomination of Douglas, inasmuch as
that, while the resolution adopted by the Con-
vention at Charleston required two-thirds of the
,ehoe electoral college, Douglas, at Baltimore, was
nominated by 1919 votes, which is less than
two-thirds of 3O3, the number of the entire cleo
toral collegel
When men rebel against party organizations
they always allege n reason therefor, OF course.
But we must confess that, in all our experience
in fighting boilers to the Democracy, we have
never heard less plausible excuse for treason
to the organization than this.
In the first place, the Charleston. resolution
requiring a majority of the whole electoral COL
lege to nominate-and which was adopted at
the instance of the seceders themselves-was
itself violation of the usages of the party, for
the famous two thirds rule heretofore adopted
in Democratic National Conventions, simply re-
quired "two-thrds of the whole number of
the Convention of ls4s, Gen. Cass nomina-
ted by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates in
Convention and not two-thirds Of the entire
electoral vote of the States. Was not General
Cass the regular nominee at that time? If so,
then is Douglas now the regular nominee, even
though, as the boilers say, he did not receive
two-thirds of the entire electoral college.
But here they are at fault again. Douglas not
only received 'two-thirds of the whole number
of votes in the Convention" to quote the Ian
guage of the famous two-thirds rule now before
US, but two-thirds of the entire electoral college
Well prove it.
After the seceders had withdrawn-they be-
ing but fraction, a minority-the regular
Convention, then consisting of 212 delegates,
proceeded regularly and legtimately, just as
would legislative body, if small minority
were to become angry and withdraw-and Doug
las received 1914 votes. The vote was then
made unanimous So that he then, of course,
received the entire 2l2 votes, the entire vote of
the Convention, and ten votes more than two
thirds of the entire electoral votes of all the
States.
But say the seceders, there were not 2l2
delegates remaining in the Convention, for the
seceders had los in their Convention, and / l05
added to 2l2 make BIT, or fourteen more than
the whole number of the electoral college
Very true But what evidence is there that
the spurious and surplus delegates were not
with the seceders? South Carolina and Florida
had no delegates accredited to Convention at
Baltimore. Take their eleven votes from the
los and you have but 81 votes left, which, nc
cording to their own showing, was all that their
Convention could claim. Now % is less than
one-third of 303, the whole number of votes in
the electoral college. Thus less than one-third
of the Convention went with the bolters
Now we ask any plain, common sense Demo-
crat If it is not preposterous to claim that mi
nority can split off from, go out Of Convention,
and make regular nominations A majority can
adjourn from one place to another, and yet its
proceedings are regular. majority cannot
bolt or seeede. A minority can. And whenever
minority withdraws from Convention, that
minority are boilers. This is so plain that every
Democrat understands it. II, in the next County
Convention, the delegations from French Gulch,
Horsetown and Shasta-being n minority of
the whole Conventon-were TO withdraw and
50 to another part of the town and organize a
separate Convention and the other delegations
being majority of the whole Convention
were to remain and proceed with the business of
the Convention, is there anv man so great a
ass as to assert that the minority Convention,
composed Of the Horse,own, French Gulch and
Shasta delegations. would be the regular Cou-
ven,ion, and that those delegates who remained
in Convention, being majority OF the entire
county, would be boters?