Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1860-08-08
POLITICAL.
From the Washington " Consti.utioa.' .

from the HdShtRgtOn - ColStt.uttOa.
Douglass claim TO regularity tn the Rouaina-
tion tcithout foundation bogus strength
did not receire tro- thirds, eCeR including
the bogus delegates.
The pretentions of the friends of Mr. Doug
las that he is the regular nominee of the par
ty have been urged with so much warmth and
persIstency in certain quarters to have pro
duced some effect on the public mind. There
are loyal democrats who now even hesitate as
| to their proper course; democrats who have
been chagrined at the Fictitious and revolu-
| tionary course of the friends of Mr.. Douglas
in the Front Street Theatre Convention in ex
cluding the regularly accredited delegates of
sovereign States, and admitting in their stead
delegates representing not even a respectable
minority or the party; demOcr who disap-
prove and denounce the one-man spIrit of rule
and ruin which. for the frs. time in our his
/ tory a party, has been made TO rise above
1 all considerations of fraternity. equality, and
I fairness; democrats who have seen the most
atrociouS aud degrading means resorted to
manufacture and misrepresent public senti-
ment. democrats who know that the great
/ bulk of the Office holders, all sorts of needy
adventures, those who make politics trade,
and are influenced by the hope to secure the
/ spolls of Office, were the noisy and unscrupu-
/ lous instruments of forcing the nomination of
! Mr.. Douglas with view to his elevation TO
the first Office in the gift of the American
/ people. Yes, even these democrats, loyal to
| party rule and devoted to the Constitution of
/ their country, are hesitating and pausing as
to the path of duty. To such we address our
selves. To such we say the claim of the
friends Of Mr. Douglas is not only arrogant
but false. Mr.. Douglas never received two
thirds of the vote of the electoral college =
! There was not in the Convention when he
was nominated two-thirds of the votes of the
electoral college. His strength, increased by
the votes of the bogus delegates from Ala
bama, louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, aud
Massachusetts,, never exceeded 172 votes; and
rejecting these votes, his strength was only
l57 votes.
a most artful and deceptive game was play
ed In the Front-street Theatre Convention to
give adyeItitious strength to Mr.. Douglas
Before we proceed to annalize the vote. we
beg to contrast with it the proceedings of the
national democracy in its Convention at the
Maryland Institute The true democracy ad-
mitLed no delegates except those legally and
formally accredited from the democratic party
of the several States; none whose credentials
had not been presented and approved by the
voice of the original Convention when 1t as
sembled in Charleston. That Convention ad-
mitted 30 seats the Dean Richmond delega
ton from New York and rejected the Wood [
delegation. The Maryland Institute Con- 1
vention, acting on facts, refused to admit the /
ferando Wood delegates to seats. So in the I
case of Illinois The united Convention at
Charleston gave seats to the Douglas dele |
gates and rejected the delegates headed by (
Isaac Cook. The Maryland Institute Con-
vention refused seats TO these latter delegates
There were gentlemen present who desired
seats as representing Iowa. They were not
admitted to seats, on the ground that they
were not authorized to act in hehalf of the
democratic party of Iowa in Convention as
sembled. This course In reference to seats,
so honorable to the true democracy, so hon
orable to the friends of Breckenridge and
Lane, demonstrates that firm reliance was
had in the Justice and necessity of their course
in instituting the Convention, and in present
ing candidates and platform worthy OF the
national democracy throughout the Union.
One hundred and five and half bona tide
electoral votes were cast in the Maryland In
stitute Convention-cast by delegates admit
ted to seats at the Charleston Convention
To which must be added the vote of South
Carolina and of Delaware, which subsequent
" endorsed the action of the Convention: one
half vote from Minesota-the case of dele !
gate who was not present in either ConYen-
tions, but who subsequently approved the ac-
tioa of the Convention which had assembled |
at the Maryland Institute. This makes III
electoral votes represented In the Maryland
Institute Convention, and leaving but 1S6
votes, including those who participated in /
neither Conventions. The records shows that !
votes in Connecticut, 3 votes in Kentucky,
81 votes in Pennsylvania. a votes in New
Jersey, vote in Maine, and = votes in Mis- /
souri,, took no part in either convention, leav- /
ing but 10 bona Jide votes in the entire con-
vention; and, counting the bogus votes from !
Alabama and louisiana, 1 bogus vote from /
Arkansas, ] bogus in Massachusetts, and ] !
bogus in Missouri, but 1S5 votes. Thus Civ |
ing Mr. Douglas the full benefit of the revo-
lutionary proceeding in rejecting regularly /
accredited delegates, admitting, TO meet his
argument of regularity. that the bogus dele !
gates were fairly admitted we find that there |
never was two-thirds of the electoral college
in his convention, and that on the final bal
lot he received only 172 votes. But it may
be contended that his nomination was made
unanimous. Let him have the benefit of the
statement, aud his full strength was only 1S5
votes-the whole number of votes actually
represented in the Convention, including bo-
gus delegates and all.
10 iuIIuSi HuStfdtS Tue COuTse Oh ueceptlOn
practiced in the Front Street Theatre, we
will refer to the vote of Massachusetts, Mas
sachusetts had 26 delegates; 16, including
Mr.. Hallet, withdrew aud took their seats 10
the Hall of the Maryland Institute, and they
cast s votes; IL, including Mr.. Chapin, Mr..
Hallett's substitute, remained, and cast 10
votes Which Conventien pursued the course
Of honor and truth? Weat right had the 10
real and the Hallet substitute, at most,
to cast more than 55 votes: They were cI-