Year: 1860

political affairs. The enmity Of that sheet
towards stephen A. Douglas will lot permit
it to pass even the slenderest opportunity for
casting reflections upon him or his friends.
No sooner did it learn that portion of the
Auti-Douglas delegates at Charleston had
withdrawn from the Convention, than it went
to work with a desperate effort to prove that
that frothy efTervescence would never have
taken place, had the Douglas majority been
but reasonable in the exercise of their pow
er, and conceded to the minority a little some
thing to relieve their agonized minds and
laeerated feelings That little something was
nothing more than an endorsement of Con-
greszional Intervention in behalf Of slavery
"a very reasonable demand to make of
Democrats


Ii now finds fault with the decision of the
Convention, allowing the delegates of all the
States which had not instructed them how TO
vote. 10 vote according to their own individ
ual feelings and desires This it pretends to
consider stupendous wrong, and says


"If there is any reliance to be placed in the
statements Of the Eastern papers there are
thirteen of the thirty five delegates from New
/ y ork, who would vote against him (Douglas)
if they were not tied up by a resolution in
| structing them to vote as unit. The same is
said to be the case in Indiana; six of her
thirteen votes would be against Douglas, but
that they are controlled by the other seven.
Now it may be all very proper and right that
delegates in a convention should cast their
votes by States, majority Of the delegation
determining the choice of the State but we
consider it very unfair to apply such rule
to New York and Indiana, and refuse to
apply it to Pennsylvania Maryland and Mis-


souri,, yet it appears to have been done, and
10y this maneuyer about eighteen votes were
gained for Douglas We are sorry TO see
members of a National Convention attempt
ing by such means to secure undue advan


tages TO any candidate We hope that when
the next meeting takes place they will re
consider their action, and adopt an equitable
and uniform rule of voting"


How himsy is this reasoning the moment
it is examined The New York State Con-
vention, having a large Douglas majority,
ruled that the delegation should vote as
unit at the Charleston Convention, and then
elected hcenty-tco Douglas delegates and
thirteen anti Douglas delegates clearly in
dicating, by the very fact of their giving the
majority of the delegates to Douglas, that
they intended the entire vote should be for
that statesman The thirteen delegates were
given to the anti Douglas side of the house
merely for the purpose of Cancellation and
harmony, and to show that the Douglas ma~
jority in the Convention regarded the Dick
inson, Administration men as fellow Demo-
Gratis, and intended no prescription Dickin-
son himself had made a speech in the Con-
vention, recommending harmony and unity
ofaction, and expressing determination to
abide by the will of the majority The ac-
ton of the New York State Central Com
mittee, in ruling that the delegates should
be elected in general Convention instead of
by districts was a Dickinson movement.
The Douglas party acquesced, notwithstand.
ing it was not intended to favor them: but
they controlled the Convention nevertheless,
and the Dickinson men haG no cause to COM
plain. They had marked out their own pro
gramme, and settled the prcliminaries. The
State Convention intended that the State of
New York should go for Douglas in the
Charleston Convention, and SO ordered the
election of delegates that she could not gc
any other way Had it been necessary to
send an entire Douglas delegation, it would
have been done. So mnch for that





Now, as to Indiana. The Express says
! that six out of her thirteen votes are against
Douglas. Suppose they are. The sense off
the State Convention was for Douglas.
and the delegates were the mere agents of
the Convention. They were positively in
structed to go for Douglas and that was suf- |
ficient. 1t would have made no difference.
if every solitary man of them had been for
Dickinson. They were bound to 90 for
Douglas no matter what happened, and i'll
they had refused to accept their election IN
der such conditions, men would have been
chosen who would carry out the will of the
body appointing them. So much for Indiana.
Her State Convention having positively pro
nounced for Douglas her delegates had no
right to vote for any other man. If then.
the sentiment ofthe Democratic party of that
State was properly represented, what cause
is there for complaint? None under heaven
But, there would have been good cause, had
they misrepresented the will of those who
sent them.


The Express says it considers it every un-
fair to apply such a rule to New York and
Indiana, and refuse to apply it, to certain
other States Well, now what unfairness is
there? ? Where a State Convention emphati-
eally pronounces in favor of certain man.
the question is settled as to who is the choice
CT the Convention. But, where the Conven-
ton expresses no pl eference and elects GER
tain men, unpledged, as delegates, who en-
tertain different opinions as to the question
OF fwho is the proper man for the canddacv,it
signifies that the Convention really has no
particular preference and is willing to allow
each delegate to act for himself in view of
the best lights before him. Where Convon.
tion really has choice, it instructs. And
where there are no instructions, one delegate
has as good right to vote, in accordance
with his own judgment, as another


Such was the ruling of the National Con-
yention at Charleston, and it was the only
just ruling that could have been made.


What will the Express pick at next?


A SEVERE REBuKE.-One of the severest