Columbia Democrat and Bloomsburg general advertiser. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1850-1866, 1860-06-09

opinion OF the Supreme Court, IN the case
OF bred Scott, had necessarily engraftcd
upon it, to the effect that the Territories
are not sovereigntics that territorial
legislature cannot exclude slave property
from the limits of its jurisdiction; and that
within its jurisdiction it is bound to take
as good care of that species of property as
it does of any other. This concession
would have preserved the harmony Of the
Convention, and then Mr.. Douglas, if nom-
mated, would have had fair chance for
an election. am willing to leave the
public to decide between me and my as
sailants on this point.
But the great complaint of all is, that
the majority of the delegation did not vote
for Mr., Douglas. This complaint is as
unrea sonable as anything else that has
been said ,and only goes to prove that in
the ardor Of their admiration for Mr. d.,
certain of his friends arc utterly incapable
of looking at both sides of this question
and judging impartially. We certainly
never pretended to b, for Mr., Douglas, and,
therefore, no one has been deceived. 1t
was perfectly well known when we were
elected delegates that we preferred other
candidates to Mr.. Douglas. But it is at
tempted to find in the large vote received
by him rcason-tO some conclusive rea-
son-why we should have abandoned our
favorites and gone for Mr.. d. Under or
binary circumstances there would be great
If not conclusive, force in this view OF the
case, aid | do not hesitate to say to you,
that with auspicious surroundings, and
were the alternatives involved only a
choice of men, with about equal chances
of success at the polls, it would have infu-
enccd my action to no inconsidcrablc de-
gree but to my mind the surroundings
utterly forbade that we should go for Mr.
Douglas. As the case then stood his NOM
ination could have resulted only in utter
defeat to himself aud the party You
must keep in mind the fact that We dld not
ballot for candidate at all until the dele
cations from eight States and the half of
the delegation from Delaware had retired
from the convention. on the ground that
they could not stand by the platform OF
principle, as then adopted. Had the
Pennsylvania and other delegations yield
ed at this juncturo AMI nominated Mr.
Douglas, everybody knows that the sccG,
ding States would forthwith have nomna-
ted a Southern candidite, and probably
called convention of all the Southern
States to have ratified that nomination
and thus, sir, the democratic party, that
glorious old organization which has done
SO much to advance the prosperity Of on
great country and ylndicatc the principles
of our republican system of government
would have been shattered into fragment
and prostrated probably forever. What
ever | might have done under other cir,
cumstanccs, thoughtit it duty-an impcr
ativc duty-to the democratic party anG
, the country to stand out against the noln
nation of Mr.. Douglas, as things then stoo,
Surely the friend. of Mr.. D. do not seek t.
nominate him for the glory of the nonins
5 ton alone. take it they desire to Sc,
him made President and, in my iuds
, lncnt, no act could have more completed
, force oscd all hi4 chances at thi. time thai
, to have nominated him in divided Con
vcntion. For myself, preferred to looj
, rather to the harmony aud success of tn
: party than to the nomination Of any favor
4 it, candidate.
: Nor, sir, is it more than Just to say tha
! tht aggregate vote a recorded in the Con
+ vtntion i'll favor OF Mr. Douglas did nc
; truly reflect the individual preferences ,
o its members nor did it reflect tn, choic
r of the States, had all the delegations vote
: as a unit. Under neither rula could VI,
vt j. have received half the votes of the Cor
: vcntlon. Ills large votJ was, therefore i
0 some measure, Fictitious. On the rul. ,
: voting PEI p':a he would have receive
= from l25 to I2S votes, aud By delegation
= from l3O TO 40. This is thn mos lib,
rdl count that can be truthfully made f.
IS him. In the New York delegation alor
/ there were fifteen or sixteen delegates VIII
II preferred other candidates, and 80 vote
+, i'll their caucus meetings, and there was
l. number in Ohio and Indiana whose ind
y 7dual preferences were not for Mr.. ID.
IL Yet all Of these votes were forced to hil
= BY the action of the majority Now, sir
&c will be frank enough to confess to YOU thu
rs had the large vote for Mr.. Douglas rcsul
,e ed to him under the old rule that prevail
Is cd at Baltimore and Cincinnati, | shoul
J not think 1t generous to make this point
'r but l make 1t because the rule was chal
IS ged; and it was the change Of Me rnle an
10 nj Me and,Ctdum oeSiye of the dcleaatc
Is that gave Mr., D, majority of votes
&c the Convention. The Cincinnati rule a
= lowed the majority of each delegation
determine how the vote of the State shoul
le be cast-whcther as unit or as the ind
y yiduol delegates preferred. The Charlie
ut ton rule so far changed this law as to tai
l. the power from the majority of the sever
l. delegations, if not instructed, and give ii
n minority equal right with the majority
l. Hence where, as in Pennsylvania al
ct New Jersey, there was large minori
tie for MIR. Douglas, they were permitted
re vote for him; while in New York. and
ID other States the delegations being instruc
T. cd to vote as unit, he received the cnti
L. number by the decision of mere maiorit
n Everybody who was at Charleston know