Daily national Democrat., 1860-09-05
The Two-Thirds Rule aud Douglass
Nomination..

We propose to show as briefly as possible,
that the argument in the Express, of yester-
day, touching the regularity of Douglass
nomination, is weak and Aimsy, and not
worth Il moments consideration except to
exhibit its fallacy
In any light in which it may be viewed,
the argument is ridiculous. In the first place
men who secede from Convention have no
right to question the regularity Of what is
done after they leave. Why didn't they stay
and make the proceedings regular, if they
couldn't be regular without them? But we
shall show that they were regular, and
strictly SO.
The Express says, (after having copied from
the reported proceedings at Charleston0
"Now, we have shown from the record Of the
proceedings at Charleston, that rule was passed
requiring the candidate to receive twO-thlrds Of
the votes Of a tull Convention, or 2o2 votes, be
fore he should be declared the nominee of the
Convention. This rule was never changed, but
was admitted as is proven by the above extracts
by those who nominated Douglas at Baltimore.
This being the case we have only to inquire
whether Mr. Douglas received the number of votes
required under the rule in order TO ascertain
whether or not he was regularly nominated. The
record shows that there were two ballots had at
Baltimore. On the first ballot 1901 votes were
cast the whole number being II : less than two
thirds OF the vote in full convention. 0fthese,
Mr. Douglas received l73l5 or PSI less than the
required number. Not having received the ade-
quatc number of votes the Convention, after
having discussed the two thirds rule, proceeded
to a second ballot, upon which l94l5 votes were
aSt Dpuulas / = ] ~ II tlo,
twothlrds. Thus 1t appears that on the second
ballot the total vote cast was not sufficient TO
nominate; but notwithstanding this the two
thirds rule was wiltuly and knowingly violated
and Mr.. Douglas declared the nominee"
The above is the very best showing that
the Breckinridge side can make, in their
meddlesome questioning of what don't con.
cern them, since they voluntarily renounced
all right to say anything about the regular
National Convention, by leaving it. This is
their best showing Let us see what there
is in it.
lst. 1t does not appear from the reported
proceedings at Charleston that the two
thirds rule, requiring two thirds of all the
votes gipcg, instead of two thirds of all the
al dH Mr.. Howard, of Tennessee, moved
the adoption Of a resolution, to the effect that
the President should not declare any caudi-
date elected who dil not receive two>thirds
of the vote of the Electoral College. The
resolution was adopted. The report Of the
proceedings goes on to say:
Mr.. Bigler moUcd to rccoasiRv the rote, and
hat the motion be LId on tie table.
Mr.. McCook, Of 0hio-The Convention having
adopcd the resolution, that it would now proceed
10 ballot, now call for the execution Of that reso-
luton and for the calling Of the rolls OF the States
Mr.. Patrick-ls it in order to make nomina.
tions?
Mr.. Caldwell, Of Kentucky, SAID his recollection
OF the Cincinnati Convention was that nomina-
tons were made there. Kentucky therefore, de-
sired to present to the Convention her favorte
SON and incoTupuble statesman, James Guthrie
Applause
SIR. Patrick, of California, desired to put in
nomination gentleman whose name is the first
choice Of the Pacific States, the honorable states
man, Daniel ). Dickinson, Of New York. fAp-
plause.
Mr.. Russell, Of Virginia Il am desired by the
delegates of the State OF Virginia to offer the
name Of the Hon. Robert NJ. T. Hunter, Of Vir-
glnla. Applause
Mr. Ewing, of Tenncssee-The Democracy of
Tennessee have requested their delegates to put
in nomination the Hon. Andrew johnson, of
Tennessee.
Mr.. Stevens, Of Oregon--I desire to place before
the Convention the name of Gen. Joe Lane, of
Oregon.
The frs vote was then declared, and was (2oo
votes being necessary to a choice as follows:
FIRST BALLOT.