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=