Year: 1860



 action of the convention in four particulars. The first ground of protest commences with the allegation that the convention had, prior to going into the nomination for Go- vernon, adopted as basis of voting the de- mocratic vote in each county in the guber- national election of 1856, when, in fact the democratic vote of the counties represented in the convention was the basis adopted and adhered to in erery rote taken, except in the appointment of delegates and electors, as the proceedings show. At no time dur ing the proceedings of the convention was inc vote of any absent county counted nor was the proposition to do so ever made until Mr. Duval moved his amendment to the third resolution reported by the commit tee on credentials. Mr. Duval's amend ment was to the effect that a majority oi the whole democratic vote of the State should be required to make nomination, and the same was laid upon the table by vote of l6, ,46O to 7,624-over two-thlrds of the vote cast being against hls proposl- tion

 The second ground of protest is that the convention refused to require two-thlrdS of the vote represented or a majority of the democratic vote of the whole State, as ne' cesssarv to nomination. 1nreply to either or both of these objections, we submit that q majority of the convention had perfect right to adopt any recognized basis for vot- ing that they might prefer, and that the minority were bound to submit to it. Of course the gentlemen who signed the pro- test will admit that right as dem mocratic.- But unfortunately for them in this case, something more than mere majority of the convention did say upon what rule they would nominate a candidate for Cover nor. We refer to the vote on the propos.- tion introduced by Dr. Taylor, that ma forty of the democratic vote represented in the convention should confer the noml- nation. That proposition was adopted by vote of 17,S17 to 6,554. Then in stead of majority deciding that two thirds of the convention should be requlr- ed to make a nomination, we find that nearly Mree- -fourths of the vote of the con vention declared in favor of the majority rule. and that too when every member of I l, r,,14 T be- Surely, if over two-thirds of the con vention were in favor of the majority rule that was adopted, when they knew that it would terminate in the nomination of Richard H Johnson, on the first or second ballot, they could not object to the inevita ble result of their own voting and that they do not we firmly believe. But 1t is inti- mated that the precedent is not a good one. Admit if you please that it is not; but we ask should convention always act solely with the view of fixing precedents? Is it the province or the duty of State conven- tion to even hazard the choice of its party for the sake of precedent or for the gratiti- cation of a small minority? Was 1t the duty of the State convention to involve it. self in number of unnecessary ballottings for the sake of establishing precedent when the result must have been the same? Suppose for moment that either of the rules contended for by the minority had been adopted and the result had been the nomination of some candidate before un- mentioned, or in no nomination at all, what account would the delegates from large majority of the counties have rendered to their party at home? We had to sacrifice the choice of the party for the purpose ot establishing precedent, would have been their unavoidable answer. So much for the first and second grounds of protest. The third objection is groundlcss in part and in the balance contradicted by the proceedings. The fourth is no objection at all The con vention could not have hazarded anything by nominating any good democrat III the State after adopting platform of princi- ples There is no rrcgularity in first nomi- hating a candidate for Governor and after wards adopting platform expressive of the sense of the democracy of the State on questions of national politics, upon which democrats of Arkansas are almost unit.

 Such are our views in regard to the ob- iections urged by the gentlemen who sign ed the protest and, we are convinced, that after they shall have taken the "sober se- cond thought" they will not permit their action in behalf of the nominee of the con vention to be governed in the least by their objections to the fair and equitable means by which his nomination was brought about.