THE HUNTINGDON GLOBE, A DEMOCRATIC FAMILY JOURNAL, DEVOTED TO LOCAL AND GENERAL NEWS, &T. THE &LITE. M.TE - ITEDOB, 2[L. Wednesday, August 1, 1860 REGULARLY NOMINATED DEMOCRATIC TICKET. FOR PRESIDENT, STITIEN A. DOUGLAS, Or ILLINOIS. FOR VICE PRESIDENT, IiTISCH V. Jl-11SCN, OF GEORGIA. DEMOCRATIC STATE idOMIN FOR GOVERNOR, EERY 0. 3:TIR, OF WESTMORELAND To the Democrats of Huntingdon County. The Democratic citizens of the several boroughs and townships of Huntingdon county, are hereby notified to meet at their usual places of holding primary meetings, on Saturday, August 11111,1860, and elect two delegates from each, who will assemble upon the following WEDNES DAY. AUGUST 15TH AT 2 G*CLOCH, P. at., in the Court House, at Huntingdon, to nominate a Ticket for County Officers, to be voted for at the approaching annual election—to elect three Congressional and titre Senatorial Conferees to put in nomination one candidate for Congress and one for the State Senate, and to transact such other business as may be thought advisable for the success of the party. The election in the several townships to be opened at 4 o'clock. P. M.. and continued open two hours, and in the sereral boroughs at 73/ o'clock, and closed at 9 o'clock, P. TA. By order of the Committee. READ THE NEW AD VEIL' MENEM'S. Read ! We ask every Democrat to read carefully the Resolutions and Address published in to-day's Globe, which were unanimously adop ted by the Democratic Mass Meeting assem bled at Harrisburg on Thursday last. The Meeting has been charged by those in the pay of the Administration, as a disorganizing body, but we challenge investigation, arid every Democrat will be compelled to admit that no portion of the proceedings can be con strued as being in the least anti-Demoeratie or outside of the regular Democratic National and State organizations. The Meeting was respectably large—and a large majority of the Democrats taking an active interest in its proceedings have always been prominent and influential men of the party. The action of the meeting do much towards harmonizing the party—will aid in crushing out the disorganizing influ ences of the disorganizing band of Disunion- ists who have attempted to rule and ruin the great National Democratic party. Read the Resolutions and Address. A SPECK OF WAR.. —The last Huntingdon Union raised to its mast-head the disor,gan izers'.tieket,—Breckinridge and Lane—and says " Henceforth, we shall have no olive branch to offer, but shall approach our enemies with the • red right hanil of war' The linos are and firmly drawn, and those that are not with us are :against us." Will the Democrats of Huntingdon county be frightened into the support of the disor ganizing Disunion ticket ? Or will they stand by the nominations made by the regular Na tional Democratic Convention ? The editor of the Union has admitted the regularity of the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas, and yet he has the impudence to ask Democrats who never bolt regular nominations, to go with him into the ranks of the worst enemies of the Democratic party,—the Yancey Die unionists. As the nion, has thrown out a challenge to test the strength in this county of the reg ular nominees; Douglas and Johnson, and of the Seceders' disorganizing candidates, Breck inridge and Lane, we hope the Democrats will accept the challenge and show their de votion to their party, its principles and its regular nominees by electing the right kind of men delegates to the Democratic County Convention which will assemble in this place on Wednesday of first week of Court. The -question is too important to be passed over by our County Convention. We either have a regularly nominated Democratic candidate for President or we have not.—lf we have, the party as a unit, should say so.—lf we have not, the last National Democratic Con vention has been held, and the party is broken to pieces, never again to be united. Every Democrat in the county should attend the delegate Election...in his district, and when there he should speak his sentiments boldly by voting for men who will not misrepresent the Democracy of the district in the County Convention ! The Democratic voters of the county will also bear in mind when they meet in their several election districts for the purpose of electing delegates to their county convention, that said delegates may be called upon to elect a Representative Delegate to a State Convention, if one should be ordered by the State Executive Committee as requested by the State Mass Meeting, held at Harrisburg on Thursday last. If a new State Conven tion should be ordered it is important that our County Convention should elect a man to that convention who will honestly represent ,the Democratic party of our county. Will every Democrat in the county be ready to act for the present and future success of his principles and his party ? We shall see. Tun SUMMER OF 1860.—The present sum mer promises to be memorable for hurricanes, hail storms, hot weather, big crops, astro nomical wonders, an unusual influx of Asiatic and European royalty, and a superabundance _of Presidential candidates. S. T. BROWN, Chairman THE DEMOCRACY SPEAK ! No Compromise with Disunionists ! A Clean Electoral Ticket Demanded: DEMOCRATIC STATE MASS MEETING ! At Harrisburg, July 20111, 1860. Douglas, Johnson, Foster and Victory ! Pursuant to a call issued by R. J. Halde man, member of the National Democratic Committee, and A. L. Boumfort, - William D. Boas, Wm. 11. Miller, Wm. 11. Eck°ls, John 11. Ziegler, Philip Dougherty, and J. M. Kreiter, members of the Democratic State Executive Committee resident at Harrisburg, a Mass Convention of the friends of Douglas, Johnson and Foster ; assembled in the Hall of the House of Representatives, at Harris burg, on Thursday, July 26th, at 2 o'clock, P. M., and was called to order by Mr. Halde man. Mr. Haldeman remarked: This Convention has been summoned in accordance with a request of the members of the State Committee, resident at Harrisburg, (with one exception) and a member of the National Democratic Committee who chanced to be at this place. The National Democratic Committee which met at Charleston and adjourned to Balti more, passed a series of resolutions which only differed from the platform put forth by the Reading Convention in this—That it went out to meet our Southern brethren in a more determined expression upon Territoral ques tions than those which the State Convention had unanimously adopted. The Democratic Conventivn before its adjournment, appointed a National Committee of one from each State, (selected by the delegation from each State,) consequently, each member of the National Committee was a part of the State as well as of the National organization of the Demo cratic party. When the National Democratic Convention adjourned at Baltimore, it was that seceders had pre-arranged a plan for the di vision of the Democratic party in all the States of this Union, under the specious plea of compromise. With this knowledge the National Committee met, in order to prevent, so far as possible, a plan of disorganization which might be fatal to the party. It passed two resolutions, which I will read, having a certified copy from the minutes of that Com mittee: At a meeting of the National Demo cratic Committee, held at Washington, June 25th, 1860, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted: Resolved, The crisis demanding the organ ization of the Democratic party against open as well as secret enemies of the Constitution and the Union, that it is therefore recommen ded to the several State Committees that they take measures to secure the adoption of the Electoral Ticket in their respective States, pledged to the unequivocal support of the nominees of the Democratic Convention, Ste phen A. Douglas and Herschel IT, Johnson. Resolved, That if any St'ate Committee shall meet to take the proper steps for securing such an Electoral Ticket, then the member of the National Committee in that State is hereby authorized to take such action as he may deem necessary for that purpose. Signed by the Temporary Chairman and Secretary. The National Committee felt that in a pe riod of disorganization it was necessary that itsbould do that which had never been neeessa ry before—exercise its supervisory powers over State organizations. We have either a Na tional organization or not. Having a Nation al organization, there must be some body, some corporate body, to speak for it. Under these circumstances the State Committee as sembled. It had been formed at Reading, in accordance with a resolution which author ised the President to choose members from each Senatorial District, and he himself chair man thereof. An additional resolution pledg ed that all who were members of that Con vention should support the regular nominees of the Democratic party made at Reading and to be made at Charleston ; and conse quently, to be made at the regular Conven tion at Baltimore. • The Chairman of the State Committee con sequently, who was President of the Conven tion, was the organ through whom the will of the Reading Convention was unanimously conveyed to the State Committee. One as sembly in Philadelphia, forty-five members less than the majority of the whole Commit tee, nearly one half of that forty-five compo sed of gentlemen from Philadelphia, adopted a series of resolutions which were in direct hostility to the action of the National Democ ratic Convention at Baltimore and the deci sion of the National Democratic Committee at AVashington. Yet I, as a representative of that Committee, carrying out the spirit which the friends of Mr. Douglas have manifested from the beginning of this war, made still more concessions. As we had yielded to dic tation at Charleston, when we were told that men would secede if we did not make a plat form before we made a nominee—as we were told, again at Baltimore, that they would se cede if we did not yield to every one of their imperious demands, and, as we submissively bowed to them, so I never attempted to use in any manner whatever that power which rightfully belongs to the National Democratic Committee. (Cheers.) I have done nothing but request sound National Democrats to meet in council, and I have done - that under cover of the State Committee. The State organization, the National organ ization, the National Democracy and the National convention have thus assembled you here, gentlemen, to-day. (Cheers.) It has been said, and even by so high a personage as the President of the United States, that there is no Democratic nominee. If there is no Democratic nominee, why then shall we obey a State committee appointed by ono man ? If there are any in this country who believe themselves, like Canute, able to declare, "thus far the proud waves shall go and no farther," we will answer that the Democratic party in its National organization is as strong and in vincible as the waves which destroyed Canute. (Applause.) We are meeting for the purpose of saving the Democratic party from disorganization within and without. Men are here of the National delegation to Charleston and Balti more, National men of the State Central Com mittee, National delegates to Reading, have all assembled for the purpose of saving the Democratic organization from treason, and we throw back any imputation with all the force that we can, with all the energy derived from truth. On motion, G. Nelson Smith of Catnbria county, was appointed temporary Chairman, and J. Simpson Africa of Huntingdon, and J. T. Owen of Philadelphia, selected as Sec retaries of the Convention. Mr. Smith on taking the chair made a few appropriate re marks. A committee on permanent organization was appointed, during the absence of which Hon. Charles Brown of Philadelphia, delivered an able speech, and at its conclusion, the Committee reported the following permanent officers President—HENraucK B. WRIGIIT, of Lu zern° county. Vice Presidents—Joseph Megarey, John F. Deal, Francis McCormick, and Edmund Keyser, of Philadelphia; John D. Pettit, of Chester ; A. T. Duffield, of Bucks ;. R. E. Wright, of Lehigh ; A. G. Green, of Berks ; J. Woods Brown, of Northumberland ; Benj. C. Crist, of Schuylkill ; Gen. Wm. Lilly, of Carbon ; John Rowe, of Franklin ; John T. Means, of Bradford ; George P. Steele, of Lu zerne ; F. A. Kroir, of Potter; Hon. C. D. Eldred, of Ly - coming ; John K. Clements, of Northumberland ; Hon. John J. Reifsnyder, of Perry ; Dr. Mercer Brown, of Dauphin ; John Black, of Lancaster; 11. L. Fisher of York ; B. F. Meyers, of Bradford ; J. F. Leon ard, of Clearfield ; D. Williams, of Indiana ; John M. Laird. of Wesmoreland ; Peter Byrne, of Luzerne ; Jacob Zeigler, of Butler ; Gen. Wm. Patton, of Erie ; Gen. John Ross, of Mi - o.in ; Wm. R. Gorgas, of Cumberland ; Charles L. Lamberton, of Clarion ; John Busby, of Adams. Secretaries—J. Simpson Africa, of Hun tingdon ; J. T. Owen, of Philadelphia ; Adam Worthman, of Philadelphia; Stanley Wood ward, of Lucerne ; John S. Dougherty, of Lancaster; C. T. Alexander, of Centre ; John M. Baum, of union ; Robert A. Lamberton, of Dauphin; John A. Meyer, of Perry; Jo siah Benner, of Adams ; John G. Orr, of Franklin ; J. Addison McCoo], of Schuylkill ; Major Jon. Rauch, of Northumberland. On motion of Hon. Richard Vaux, of Phila delphia, the Chair was authorized to appoint a committee of thirteen to prepare an address and resolutions, The Chair appointed as such committee, Richard Vans, of Philadel phia ; I. C. Mitchell, of Centre ; John Cessna, of Bedford ; W. L. Dewart, of Northumber land ; Charles Brown, of Philadelphia ; John W. Maynard, of Lycoming ; James Nill, of Franklan ; Israel Painter, of Northumber land ;Judge Champneys, of Lancaster; Stan- ley Woodward, of Luzerne ; George W. Pearce, of Chester ; C. L. Ward, of Bradford ; Geo. 11. Bucher, of Cumberland. During the absence of the committee, the meeting was ably addressed by several gen tlemen. lion. Richard Valls from the committee re ported the following resolutions, which, with the address, after some discussion, were unan imously adopted amid much applause. WnEREAs, We, Democrats from all parts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in Mass Convention assembled, in favor of the regular organization of the Democratic party, its nominations, usages, and principles, do hereby solemnly declare and resolve -Ist. That we ratify and confirm the reso lutions and nominations of the late State Democratic Convention held at Reading. 2d. That we ratify and confirm the resolu tions and nominations adopted and made by the only regularly organized Democratic Na tional Convention held at Charleston and Baltimore. • 3d. That we hereby proclaim our sincere, faithful, energetic, and uncompromising sup port of the nominations by the State Conven tion of Henry D. Foster for Governor, and by the National Democratic Convention of Hun. Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, for Presi dent, and Hon. Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for Vice President of the United States. 4th. That we hereby solemnly protest against the proceeding:3 of the Democratic State Committee, held at Philadelphia on the 2d of Jnly, 1860— Ist. Because said action of that committee was unwarranted by the terms and authority of its appointment. 2d. That it was in opposition to the instruc tions and resolutions of the Reading Conven tion, from which it alone derived its official authority. 3d. That it thereby proposed to release the electors from the only duty enjoined on them to vote for the regular candidates nominated by the regularly constituted National Con vention of the Democracy of the United States and undertook to authorize and justify said electors to vote for candidates other than those so regularly nominated. 4th. That said action of State Committee is contrary to the usages of the party, tends to break up its organization, recognizes direct opposition to its nominees, and would prevent the masses of the party from voting for Ste phen A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson, the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President of the United States. And wllerea.s.,.therefore,in the present con dition of the Democratic party, thus induced by the disorganizing action ct ;he State Com mittee, it becomes necessary i',)r the Demo cratic party to take such decisive and unmis takable ground as will put to rest all doubts as to its feelings, wishes, opinions and duties in the present crisis: therefore be it Res6lved and declared, That the proposed plan of the Democratic State Committee for fusion and compromise is anti-Democratic, will not be sanctioned by a full meeting of the committee, and will be rejected by the Democratic masses; and in order, therefore, to test the truth of our convictions, by an appeal to the Democracy for our support, we demand that the meeting of the Democratic State Committee, to be held at Cresson on the 9th of August, shall rescind its action of the 2d of July, and proceed to interrogate the elec tors if they are prepared to obey the instruc tidns of the Reading Convention, and vote for the regularly nominated Democratic candi dates of the party, Douglas and Johnson, and on negative replies of any of the electors, or by refusal to reply, vacancies occur, or by a refusal of any so to pledge themselves, or if the said Democratic State Committee refuse to call a Convention, then the true men on said Committee proceed to call a convention of the Democratic party to complete the electoral 'ticket, and pledge it to the uncon ditional support of regular organization and the regularly nominated candidates. Resolved fiather, That the integrity of the principles and organization of the Democratic party and the success of its candidates is its great aim and hope, and that to insure these objects is of vital importance, as well now as for the future ; and should the Democratic State Committee refuse to obey the instruction of the Heading Convention and the demand of the Convention now assembled at Harrisburg hereby made endorsing them, then the Demo ocratic State Committee, or such members as refuse so to vote, have forfeited their power and position, and we hereby request the faith ful and true Democrats on said committee to carry out AO perfect the purposes of its creation, and when so assembled to act as the Democratic State Committee of Pennsyl vania, Resolved, That it is hereby declared to be the duty of the said Democratic State Com mittee, assembled as herein set out, to call a convention of the Democratic party of Penn sylvania in favor of its regular organization and nominated candidates, and to meet on or before the 28th of August next, or as early as practicable, for the purpose of perfecting the Democratic electoral ticket pledged to support, maintain, and abide by the action of the Democratic Convention and the regular candidates of the party—Stephen A. Douglas, Herschel V. Johnson, and Henry Foster. Resolved. That it is hereby declared to be the will and wish of this Convention, repre senting the Democratic masses of the State, that an electoral ticket be presented to them wholly pledged to vote for Douglas and John son, and no other candidate ; and in the event' of any obstacle arising to prevent the assem bling of the Convention to be called to meet as aforesaid, then, and in that case only, the Democratic State Committee, organized as herein suggested, shall have, possess, and ex ercise the power and authority to form such an electoral ticket. Resolved, That the President of this Con vention - shall appoint a Central Executive Committee for correspondence and vigilance to aid and unite with the true men on the Democratic State Committee, and guard the vital interests and regular organization of the Democratic party, and to deliberate and de cide on such action as may be necessary, if the Democratic State Committee at its meet ing on the 9th of August shall refuse to call a new Convention, or if any emergency may arise, and promptly to address the Democra cy of Pennsylvania, correspond with the regular organizations in the several counties, and aid in their institution, and distribute correct information throughout the Common wealth. Resolved, That the Convention respectfully and earnestly ask a prompt and efficient or ganization forthwith to be made in every county and township in the Commonwealth, so that the electoral ticket may be presented to every Democratic voter in Pennsylvania, and also to insure the success of the Demo cratic State and national candidates in Octo ber and November next. Resolved, That the Democratic party of Pennsylvania is not to be held responsible for the opinions or views of those who were once in its regular organization, but who now, either as editors or appointees, have united with seceders from the Democratic party, and are using their public position to destroy its union and harmony, and to defeat its regu larly nominated candidates. Resolved, That no newspaper other than those which rally to the support of Doug las, Johnson, and Foster, shall be considered as speaking authoritatively for the Democrat ic party. In addition to the resolutions, the commit tee, through Ira C. Mitchell, of Centre, re ported the subjoined address, which was unanimously abopted: ADDRESS TO TIIE PEOPLE OF PENN SYLVANIA. We, the Democracy of Pennsylvania, in mass Convention assembled, deem it proper that we should clearly and distinctly enun ciate the position we at present occupy among the existing political parties, recapitulate the causes and influences which have brought about the alarming crisis in which we are involved, and explain to the voters of the Commonwealth the motives which impel and control our action in the important campaign already inaugurated in the American Union. Wo have long been members of the Dem ocratic organization, and our present de sire is to act in defence of its established prin ciples, and in conformity with its settled usages, and to support its regular nominees. In now addressing ourselves to our fellow citizens throughout the State, we are actuated by a sincere devotion to the Constitution, under whose protection ve dwell, to the time honored principles of our party, and by the impulses of an elevated patriotism. Regard ing the Presidential contest in which we are now engaged as one altogether too sacred for the gratification of partisan prejudice—as one rising far above the atmosphere of the selfish political spoilsman, we desire to act exclusive ly with a view to the future interests of our heretofore flourishing, but now threatened Republic, and the perpetuity of the time-hon ored principles of the party to which we be long. Thus actuated, it behooves us calmly to reckon our latitude and longitude, careful ly to inspect our crew, and fearlessly to set sail upon the political ocean, determined safe ly to enter port, or if we unfortunately wreck on the rocks of fanaticism and sectionalism. our proud colors shall continue to float at our mast-head, indicative of the future success of our noble vessel. Now, for the first time in the history of Democracy, we have presented to us the strange anomaly of an organization formed in hostility to the Democratic party, based upon antagonistic principles and advocating candidates for President and Vice President and in many of the States of the Union for local officers, hostile to the Democratic nomi nations, and yet claiming to be the National Democratic party, and endeavoring to possess and control its organization. Our primary duty, then, is to examine the grounds upon which these remarkable arrogations are foun ded, and to ascertain what reason there is in these bold assumptions. If they are really the Democratic party—if their candidates are the National Democratic nominees—it is clearly and manifestly our duty as loyal Dem ocrats to support them and no others. Other wise they are entitled to no more respect or consideration from us than any other oppo sing and anti-Democratic organization. We have either but one Democratic nomi nee for President and one for Vice President, or we have none, because there was but one National Democratic Convention called and invested with power to make nominations, to which we, in any manner, owe our political allegiance. That Convention was duly called, and in accordance therewith, met in the city of Charleston on the 23d day of April last, and then it adopted as its platform of princi ples, with some slight additions in which all concurred, the series of resolutions adopted at Cincinnati in 1856, advocated during the Presidential campaign of that year by Dem ocrats throughout the entire Union, and main tained triumphantly at the ballot-box by the American people. Upon the occurrence of this result a number of the delegates from the cotton States, under the lead of Wm. L. Yancey, who avows himself not for the Union, claiming the recognition of a doctrine incon sistent with all the past professions of the Democratic party, severed their connection with the Convention and with the party, re tired to another portion of the city, and formed themselves into a separate and distinct body— distinct, not only in organization, but distinct and diverse in their fundamental principles. After this disintegration of the Convention, that body proceeded to ballot for a candidate for President of the United States, and so continued for fifty-seven consecutive ballots, during which Stephen A. Douglas received a decided majority of all the votes of a full Convention. The minority should then have yielded ; but having due regard for the usages of the party, and desiring as far as consis tent with honor to conciliate and satisfy the extreme South, the Convention, after author izing the Democracy of the States, whose del egates bad resigned their commissions and abandoned their seats, to supply the vacan cies thus occasioned, adjourned to meet in Baltimore on the 18th day of June. Pursu ant to said adjournment, the Convention re assembled, and by virtue of the power inhe rent in all deliberative bodies, it proceeded to determine, in the usual manner, who of the different claimants were entitled to take seats and act as delegates in the Democratic National Convention. This question being decided (as all questions necessarily are) con trary to the will and wishes of the minority; An additional secession occurred. The state of the Convention after all secessions, and the manner in which our candidate was nom inated, is succinctly stated by the National Democratic Committee, as follows : After all secessions, as well as the refusal of certain delegates from Georgia and Arkan sas, together with the entire delegations from Texas and Mississippi, to occupy their seats our National Convention at Baltimore yet re tained 424 delegates, or 212 electoral votes; being ten more than two-thirds of the electoral votes of the whole Union. But some of these delegates (as in the case of Georgia) refrained from voting, the majority of the delegation hav ing retired; others (as in the case of Arkansas,) although full delegations, and authorized, in case of any secession, to cast the whole vote of their State, preferred only to cast that which would be a fair proportion between the Seceders and themselves ; and yet others (as in the case of Delaware and portions of the delegations from Kentucky and Missouri) declined to vote, but refused to secede. This accounts for the fact that, upon the second ballot by States, Mr. Douglas received only 1811 votes. Mr. Breckinridge receiving Mr. Guthrie 4 votes, the States of South Car olina (8) and Florida (3) having authorized no delegates to any convention at Baltimore. Here is the ballot as recorded : Brecleinridge. Gutkrie. Douglas 44 44 Maine, Newhampshire, " L, 5 Vermont, 4t ~ 5 ~ Massachusetts, " 10 Rhode Island, 41 ~ 4 it Connecticut, t Ci 9'" fi oa New York, New Jersey, tt 2 Pennsylvania, 10 9/ 2 10 Maryland, tt • CA “ 3 Virginia, North Carolina, " LC 1 Alabama, CI it 9 Louisiana, 6 66 Arkansas, 14, Missouri, Tennessee, ~ ~ 3 'I 2 Kentucky, (4 23 t 4 13 ~ Ohio, Indiana, if C 6 1.1. Illinois, Michigan, ~ 6 4C Wisconsin, ~5 ~ lowa, 4 Minnesota, 4 On motion of Mr. Clark of Missouri, at the instance of Mr. Hoge, of Virginia, the ques tion was then propounded from the chair whether the nomination of Douglas shouhtor should not be, without further ceremony, the unanimous act of the Convention and of all delegates present, the chairman distinctly re questing that any delegate who objected (whether or not having voted) should signify his dissent. No delegate dissented; and thus, at last, was Stephen A. Douglas unani mously nominated in a Convention represent ing more than two-thirds of all the electoral votes as the candidate of the Democratic par ty for the Presidency of the United States. It may further be added, that so far as the Democratic party of Pennsylvania are con cerned, they are honorably bound by the ac tion of their entire delegation to support Ste phen A. Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson, because as it appears from the recorded pro ceedings of the Convention, every delegate from this State was present, and consenting to the passage of the resolution declaring Mr. Douglas to bi the unanimous nominee of the Democratic party. No one of our delegation notified the Convention of their withdrawal therefrom, or of a suspension of his partici pation in its deliberations. While a number declined to vote and actually associated with the Seceders, our entire delegation appears, from the records, to have been present when the final resolution was passed without a dis senting voice. Mr. Dawson, who bad been a consistent opponent of Douglas for the nomi nation, with a promptness that did him great credit as chairman of the delegation, pledged the Democracy of the Keystone State to the support of the nominees of that Con vention. Under these circumstances, then, Pennsylavnia should be the last State in which secession will be permitted to set its feet. When the Democratic Convention adjourn ed at Charleston, the Seceders also adjourned, not to meet in conjunction with their late as sociates, but to meet at Richmond on the 11th day of June. They accordingly did then and there re-assemble, but the Baltimore Seceders refused to join them, and, without authority, without call or announcement, came together in an impromptu manner, and after playing the farce of christening themselves the Na tional Democratic party, agreed unanimously that John C. Breckinridge and Joseph Lane should be their candidates for President and Vice President. The whole number of votes, reported by themselves to have been cast for their candidates, being but one hundred and five, it is apparent that at no time had they a quorum of a National Democratic Conven tion, and at no time were they competent, (conceding their regularity in all other re spects) even to organize such a Convention, much less to perform acts binding upon the Democracy. The utmost they can claim for their proceedings is that they they were the origination and incipiency of a new party, distinct and separate in every respect from all other political organizations known to the American people. To revert to the proceedings of the Nation al Convention, let us inquire in what particu lar were they irregular ? Or what occurred to justify the allegation that the nomination of Douglas was not made in strict accordance with the usages of the party, and is not there fore binding upon the Democracy? The chief complaint made by the Seceders was that persons were improperly admitted to seats as delegates. Now, without inquiring into the merits cr, the respective delegations contesting—which question was fairly settled by the Convention —we have simply to ascertain whether the Convention transcended its powers or not, in assuming absolute and final jurisdiction thereof. This can scarcely be alleged, for the Seceders themselves, without disputing the complete jurisdiction of th e convention over the question, participated throughout in the very proceedin! , .s which resulted in the con tingency upon the happening of which they withdrew. Similar questions had been de termined in the same way at Charleston with out objection, complaint or secession on that account. It is not known that in the entire history of the party any other manner of settling contested seats has ever been resor ted to. The rules of the House of Represen tatives of the United States were adopted, so far as applicable, for the government of the convontion. Section V, Art 1, of the Con stitution of the United States, (which is ne cessarily one of the rules of the House,) says "Each house shall be the judge of the elec tion returns and qualifications of its own members." Then the convention had full power to pass finally upon the credentials of persons claiming to participate as delegates, and every acting delegate -tvas obliged in honor to abide by the decision of the majority upon that as upon all other questions. Again, it is said that Mr. Douglas was not fairly nominated, because ho did not receive the votes of two-thirds of a full Convention. The fallacy of this assumption has already been made apparent by the quotation from the National Committee, but it may be re marked that until the present bold attempt to distract and destroy the Democratic party, the rule was never held to require more than two-thirds of the votes cast for a candidate, provided the-votes so cast lvere a quorum.— The convention at which it was first adopted (in 1844) thus construed it, and a similar COll - has uniformly been placed upon it, by common consent, in every convention from that day to this, except the one over which Caleb Cushing unfortunately presided. Mr. Douglas on the second ballot at Balti more received all the votes cast but fourteen, and on the final vote declaring him the unan imous nominee more than two-thirds of a full convention gave their assent. So that under either construction of the rule, he is the regular nominee of the National Demo cratic Convention, according to the usages of the party, and, therefore, the nominee of the entire party. Those who do not support him are outside the party, and it matters not to us where they belong. If they are not for us they are against us. The action of the State executive Commit tee in recommending a compromise and a Union electoral ticket, is already so well known to the people as to render it unneces sary that the resolutions, So insidiously fram ed and dangerous in their character, should be inserted here. They simply propose that in a certain contingency, the electors appoin ted by time State Convention at Reading shall vote (in the event of their election,)for Breck inridge and Lane—gentlemen unknown as Demnertic candidates. They argue most ear nestly, and with apparent sincerity, the pro priety of consenting to this arrangement, be cause it will combine the entire strength of the Democratic party in the State, and secure the election of the ticket. Could we believe that any action of those who manage the ma chinery of politics would hind the incorruptible masses of the Democracy, and lead them like dumb men, whithersoever we would, and had we no more worthy object, no more elevated aim, than mere temporary success and the election of our candidates, we might be indu ced to consent to this unauthorized, unworthy, and disorganizing suggestion of the Execu tive Committee. ~ 4} What are the elements with which we are asked to unite ? The seceding: organization is composed of the ultra Disunionists and slave-code advocates of the South, and the cohorts of the Federal Administration, moved by a spirit'of vindictive personal hostility— such as animated Themistoeles in his constant warfare upon the immortal Aristides—bent, on the defeat of our candidate, although it may result in the destruction of the Democraic party and the dissolution of the American Union. It is composed of men who withdrew from a regularly called, regular organized, and regularly acting Democratic Convention, and set up for themselves outside of that body and in opposition thereto. Their doc trine, like that of the Republicans. declares the power of Congress over the Territories for their government, and demands that that power shall be exercised for protection of slavery therein—a doctrine which is in direct contravention of all the past professions of the Democracy, and in contradiction of the principles advocated North and South by eve ry Democratic orator four years ago, inclu ding John C. Breckinridge, the nominee of the Seceders, and James Buchanan, the Pres ident of the 'United States. The sccesssion at Charleston occurred, os tensibly, on account of the refusal of the Con vention to adopt the very platform which our Executive Committee propose that the Democ racy of Pennsylvania shall now support. A union upon an electoral ticket pledged to the support of both candidates would be an amal gamation of principles as antagonistic as the poles. How could we conduct the campaign as the upholders of conflicting theories of government ? What principles would our press advocate ? What would our public speakers say ? What addresses would our committees issue ? We denounced the Re publican and American parties, in the last Presidential contest, for • their sacrifice of principle in forming a combination, and now we are asked to render ourselves obnoxious to similar and more scathing denunciations The fact has already been adverted to, that a controlling influence in the new party is personal malignity against our_ candidate.— Can we trust men thus actuated to support him under any circumstances ? If we can, then, verily, may we rejoice in the dawning of the millennium, when enemies can in union dwell—when "the wolf and the lamb shall lie down together." Moreover, the course pursued by the new organization since the sojournment at Balti more, shows conclusively that they have "no part nor lot with us," and we should not have with them—that they are real enemies of Democracy, and that their professed desire for harmony is but the disguise of some ulte rior and dangerous purpose. It has been aptly compared to the wooden horse, which, filled with armed men, ready to rush forth from their seclusion and annihilate its obser vers and their enemies, once used by the Gre cians to attract and deceive the Trojans.— They have persistently continued the busi ness of separating them Selves from the organ ization, have nominated a full State ticket in many of the States of the Union, and in some of the counties of this State have actually se- THE COMPRO3IISE I=
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers