Daily national Democrat., 1860-08-01
The Record Again.

lhg lis inconsistency, oy quoting roH Vie
DEMooRAT, to demonstrate, as il says, that we
were in favor Of bursting up OF the Con
yention. Like its endeayor to eXtricate itselt
from the dilemma in which We placed it,
few days ago, it is silly attempt and
failure
The Express asserts that the DRMocRAr ex-
pressed determination to DO, las it, the Ex
rress has done) towit bolt the National Con-
yention, in a certain contingency. To prove
this, it. quotes from an article Of ours,in which
we said, speaking of the anti Douglas faction
"But in every instance in which they pos
sibly get up Bogus Convention, they will do 1t,
and send bogus delegates to contest the seats OF
the regular and legitimate Douglas delegates
! This will undoubtedly create disturbance, and,
he ercluded, the C0RUeHtt0H aCW as certainly be
burst IN t1c0 as the sun Hos0 shines. In suCu CASE
WE WISH TO SEE IT BURST IN Two"
Well, what is there in the above at all in
consistent We said, in the remarks pre-
cedng the quotation, that it was probable
the Buchanan haters of Douglas would get
up bogus meetings and send irregular dele
gates to Charleston. The result would be
that there would be contested seats. If the
uncontested delegates excluded the legitimate
delegates from the contested seats, Why then
the Convention ought to break up. Such
was our position, and the rule would have
been equally fair on the other side. But, no
such thing was done on either hand No
legitimate delegates at all were excluded at
Charleston, and consequently there was no
excuse for either party's refusing to recog-
nize the authority of the Convention 1t
,cas recognised by both wings of the party,
and there was no earthly argument by which
either side could justify a secession aft err
wards. The Seceders acknowledged that all
was right, went into the Convention, took
seats acted IN the proceedings and then de-
ljberately bolted. There was no refusing
delegates seats or anything of the kind, ITe
never said that men would be justified in
boiling the National Convention, after having
taken their seats. We only said that the
regular delegates ought to be admitted, and
if they were not, the regular organizations
which sent them would not be bound by the
action which excluded them.
The Express quotes, also, from the DEMO
Graf, as follows:
GAS Maine and Illinois are, so are nearly all the
Northern States on this question of Popular Sove
reignty, and the Charleston COH0eHtj0R aCW either
| a01atnate Stephen Il. D0HyLts for tile Presidency
or split 'o,de open. If it acquiesces in the will Of
the Democracy of this Union, it will nominate
| II = - = H.,
racy II ought TO burst IN t10O, and itDiH."
Very well, the meaning of the above,
taken in connection with the context from
which it is taken, is simply this-a large ma
ority of the Northern States had held regu-
lar Conventions and sent delegates to Charles
ton. The regular delegates were evidently
in the majority. Now, if by any hocus pocus,
in the settlement of contested seats this clear
Douglas majority should be excluded from
seats in the Convention, it would be an out
rage which the Northern Democracy should
not stand That is all that was meant by the
declaration that the National Convention
would either nominate Douglas or split. 1t
was based upon the plain factthat he had an
undoubted majority in the Convention, if the
regular delegates we're admitted Such was
the meaning of the expression ,efecting the
wW Of tie Democracy. If the majority of
the regular delegates in the Convention were
for Douglas, it certainly would be rejecting
the will of the Democracy, if they voted.
Now, comes what the Express imagines is
a cincher. 1t says;
We will now prove by the DEMOCRAT that it
was the intention of MIR. Douglas to bolt the Con-
venton in case it did not endorse his squatter
sovereignty doctrine. 1t will be remembered that
Mr. Douglas, on the 22d of June, 1853, addressed
letter to j. b. Dorm, concerning the Charleston
Convention. Commenting on this letter the
DEMOCRAT said:
"What is the meaning, now, of this letter
Simply this, that he will not recognize the Con-
yenton at Charleston as binding upon him, un-
less sustains the principles for which he has
been contending"
Everybody knows that Douglass position
was, that he would support the nominee of
the National Convention, but that he would
not accept nomination at the hands of that
Convention if it Incorporated Congressional
Intervention or a slave code doctrine into the
| Democratic platform. In stating, in con-
densed shape, the meaning Of that letter, We
used language which gives the Express an
opportunity to misconstrue us. But the gem
eral tenor of our comments on the letter in
question plainly shows that We meant no
more than this-that Douglas would not ac-
cept nomination on platform which re-
cognzed Congressional intervention with
slavery in the Territories, But he never
said he would bolt. On the contrary, he
pledged himself to support the nominee.
The Express will have to try again. With
all its detaching of extracts it cannot make
out case But, even if it could, that
wouldn't relieve it from its dlemma-towit:
its having agreed to abide by the action OF
the National Convention and then not doing
it, and its having denounced the Seceders and
Immediately afterwards sustaining them.
PAT HARRs, OF BurTE.-An Oroyille cor
respondent of the Express undertakes to ridi
cule Gen. Pat Harris, of Butte, and formerly
Of Kentucky, because he refused to have any.
thing to do with the late Boiling Breckin-
ridge meeting at Oroyille. We presume G en-.
Harris can stand it. Acting from clear
conviction ofrght, he is not the man to falter
when the struggle comes. We know Pat
Harris and we know him to be as gallant
and as true a son of the South as any man
that lives. No doubt the owners of negro
plantations in Maine and New Hampshire en-