Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1860-08-24

On motion of Mr.. Clark, of Missouri, at the
instance Of MIR. Hodge, Of Virginia, the queS-
ton was then propounded from the Chair
whether the nomination of DouglHs should or
should not be, without further ceremony, Che
unanimous act Of the Convention and of all
the delegates present; the Chairman distinctly
requesting that any delegate who objected
whether or not having yotcd) should signify
his dissent. Nodelegatc dissented; and thus,
at last was STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS unanimously
nominated in a Convention representing more
than two-thirds of all the electoral votes, as
the candidate of the Democratic party for the
Presidency of the United States.
Was il irregular thus TO proposes candidate
II so, Lewis Cass was irregularly nominated
at Baltimore, in 1913, which no man ever pre-
tended, for the same method was adopted II
his case"
First. 1t is not true that General Cass
was nominated, in 1913, in similar
manner. Such a procedure, the nomi-
nation of candidate by resolution prior
to his receiving two-thirds Of the vote Of
tho Convention, whero there was con-
test, never before was witnessed in Ma
tional Democratic Convention. This re-
solution was another innovation upon De-
mocratic usagos.
Second. 1t is not true that the Chair
man notified the delegates that those who
did not object should be counted as voting
for the resolution. No published pro-
ceeding of that Convention puts any such
remark into his mouth. On the contrary,
every published proceeding, including
those published at the time in the Balti-
more, Washington, and New York pa
pers. reported by diiicrentreporters, con-
clusively demonstrates that he gave ut
teranco to no such language. But, even
if he did, it was not in his power, and
was not within the scope Of his duties as
presiding officer, to dictate to delegates
what course they should pursue, or to
bind them by his mere ipsc dirh. Each
delegate had the right to vote, or not to
vote, as to him seemed proper and Of
this he was tho sole judge, answerablc
for his course to his constituency alone,
The Convention had decided that, in ac-
cordance with the established usages Of
the party, it required two-tbirds (202
votes) of the electoral votes TO nominate
The highest vote at any time attained by
Mr.. Douglas was 1879, and the whole
number cast 1856. How were 202 votes
for Mr.. Douglas to be manufactured Out
f196 votes, all told, 14I of which wcrc
cast against him ?
Eighteen delegates remained in the
Convention as spectators, taking no part
whatsoever in its deliberations, and ex-
pressly declaring that they were not
bound by its decision. Various devices
were tried to compel these Is delegates
to vote. Mr. Church Of New York,
had offered resolution declaring Mr..
Douglas the nominee, when he had re-
ceiyed only 1881 votes. We quote the
following proceedings which then onsucd {:
"Thc question was loudly called for.
Mr.. Jones, Of Pennsylvania, said he was
ready TO support the nominee Of the C0nyen-
ton when he shall be nominated by the rules
Of the Democratic party. At Charleston it
was determined that two-thirdg Of all the
electoral college WAS necessary to nonina-
ton.
II was objected that debate was not in
order.
"The President (Mr. Todd) so ruled
"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 nj
Charleston, and said his resolution wns in
tended to change the rule Of instruction
adopted At Charleston. New York bad come
here 10 pour oil on the troubled waters, and
bad faithfully cndcayored to do 80. They had
yielded every thing except personal honor 10
heal thediyisions which existed. IIeproeecded
10 condemn theaction ofthcseeeding delegates
"Mr.W $. Cuttings, Of Maryland, entered
4 protest against the propositions Of Mr.
Church, Of New York A rule was adopted
VI Charleston that two-thirda Of All the votes
ii the ELECTORAL college was required ~ nomi-
laic a candidate for PRECEDENT