The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1860-07-13

ii Is Well known that some nersone !, ,ba
South have Tor long time desired dissolu,Ton
Of the Union. I believe some. if no, an of ~
South Carolina Delegation to Richmond. avong
that de>lft This Convention at Rich nond al
so Nominated BreckmrIdSe and Lane. Som. 1p
Clare that the elect ion offs Republican pres,-
dehi viii be sufficient ground for dissolution
Those VINO f~ally desire a dissolution, could
scarcely drVt.' surer method To accomplish !,
than b. the dissolution OF thr Democratic Usr-
ty, tner~by promo ing the elrt:ion of MIR. Lin
coin. Ia not ih- fact that such sentiments are
avowed, sutficje nj reason for all true Dem
ocra,s TO shun the nomination Of Breckinrd94
and Lane, as they would shun the enemies vi
their COUNTRY ?--s
Hostility 10 Mr.. Douglas has bad much 10 10
with rtfecting The secession. That this hostility
is unwse and unfounded in reason, public iudy.
ment and future history will surely determine.
| That he is able, patriotic and capable few 1. auy
Will deny That this hostility exists, Very
few examples will clearly prove. In Alasss
chusrtts, three gentlemen were elected 10
/ Charleston as the open and ayowed friends OF
Judge Douglas All three of them were found
among The Seceders at Baltimore. Two ofthen
were appointed TO high positions and lucrative
| offices after their election as delegates and be-
has been similarly rewarded since the adjourn
ment ofthe Convention. Almost all the officers
OF the General Government and all the papers
under their control, are now bitter agstnsG
Douglas aGd warm for Breckinridge.
Al. the rules, usages and customs bv which
they went into power are now disregarded and
! held nirrlor 10 the personal hatred and subser-
/ viency OF at least some OF the minions oi power
| Ii IS no u2e 10 multiply examples on this point.
| The two causes of Secession given by those
who withdrew and the reasons to which thsjF
~conduct has been attributed, have been hastily
( considered
( There are two other causes OF COMPLAINT
not yet TneutIoned-these are not given in
justification Of secession, but as reasons o.
. dissatisfaction. One OF these was the course OF
the Convention IN regard 10 the motion, or
resolution ot construction of the two thirds
rule. lhlS was, or %as not, rule Of the Con-
ventIon. II rule, 1t never was adopted be-
cause that tthent required 4 two third vots
aud this only received l4l to 1l2. Ii it was
not rule, then It wss a mere resolution, sub
jet 10 the will Of the ma jority at any time
1t was clearly rescIndrd, or repealed, by the
motion made by Gov. Church and renewed by
Mr.. Clark. Even il it had been a rule, il
was REPEALED, because the motion was adopted
unanimously. The motion was adopted after
the secession a. Charleston, never received Z.
majority Ct 4 foil Convention, and was rs
pealed by the entire vote Of the Convention.
2l8 Ce!egares being present
Another objection urged in some quarters.
was the uuI! rue the Convention.
This was simply reducing the common law
oi the party on the sutisct Of voting to stat.
ute. The rule provided that nnorities might
vote, except IN cases when the State Couven-
ZION had directed the vote TO be cast as an
un.L. Such had been almost the universal
custom OF former Conventions. The recorda
Of Conventions will show minority votes from
many OF The States ofthe Union. Under the
old rules and p-actIce, II seldom, if ever.
| happened That the majority of an uninstructed
delegation attempted to stIfe the will of ,bs
minority But from the TACT that such high
named efforts were being made by some of
/ the delegations 10 this Cony ention, :he Iula
was adopted. Il was fully considered and dis
cuSsed 10 comnti5e, and passed bv vote NJ
! 20 10 :. In Tie Convention il was again fully
discussed and adopted by a vote Of 1877 10
1904. Indeed, tbe chpf, If not the onIv
argument against If, was that i, was unnecessa-
-, as the right to cast such votes already ev.
Isted This rule received the votes of Ken
lucky, Tennessee, halt OF Delaware, nearly ali
OF Missouri aud Arkansas, part of North CaroG-
ia and several other delegates who afterwards
seeded. Bot aside from this, it was right in
Itself Il provided that in cases of instruction.
50 TO do, Delegations should vote as a unit
ln other cases, delegates should be allowed to
vote for themselves.
The IL 81 part OF the Rule can not be obisc-
ted 10. When gentleman accepts the trus,
under instructions, he does not represent him
self, but his State. He has no individual
views and II be had, he is in honor bound 70
suppress them. Any other course of action nv
the individual, or by the Convention. would
conflict with State rights and State sovereivntv.
This method made n. York, Ohio and
lntlana unanimous tor Douglas, and Georgia
Alabama, MIssl9s:ppl and Louisiana unanimous
against him.
On the other hand, in all cases where tbs
State Conventions had neglected or refused ~
instruct, the delegates were allowed 10 vote AZ
they saw ht. Any other course would again
| have been an nlerfeierrnce with Stats
Sovereignty, IN electing their delegations, and
an act OF tyranny by the majority towards the
minority. This method gave Judge DOUGLAS
lew votes IN Pennsylvania, Que in North
carolina, one IN Tennessee,and one in Virginia.
II lost hun 3 IN Maine, p in Connecticut and
IN Minnesota. Mary yland, Missouri and
Massachusetts, being equally divided, were nos
affected by the Rule
All these, however, appear to me 10 be obisc-
tons hunted up, on purpose, by men determined
IN advance to De dissatisfied, and going abroad in
search OF reasons TO justify or bolster 10 .as fs,
| as possible their course of action. Halt the
effort to find reasons in favor of the act,on of
the national convention Of their narty ara :;