The New York Herald Newspaper, July 19, 1860, Page 2

2 NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1860, THE DOUGLAS NATIONAL MANIFESTO. A Fair and Square Fight with the Breckinridge Party. “NO COMPROMISE WHATEVER ADMISSIBLE.” Appeal to the Democracy of the United States, &., &., &s. Dexocranic Nationat Execctivs ComMirres Lam Wasmuxaton Crrr, July 18, 1860. Few The undersigned bave it in charge, at the instance of She national committee of the democratic party to ad. dress you some words of expiapatiou and counse’, You are all advised, by this time, that a minority of ‘the dele. tes Boceded ‘ou regular National Coavention at Enttimore, and have proposed John C. Breckinridge and J Lane as their caudidates for the Presidency and Vice Presideuoy of the Untied States. 1 an coourrence Without example in our history ; ‘consequences which may ensue—involving, possibly, the existence of that Union which our fathers ‘us constantly to maintain—there is a somewhere. if the responsibility be upon these of us who have adhered tw the ancient 2 of the democratic party, whose banners now display the honored names of A. Douglas and V. Johnson, as the regular de- reg mocratic nominees, we can but protest, in all sincerity, that we <r ‘no unjust advantrge of our seceding bre, have orred, if atall, through mere mis Judy ‘It appears to us, however, upon a careful and dell review of al] thas transpired at Baltimore as well as at Charleston, that the supporters of Messrs. Breckinridge and Lane, in violating the settled usages of the democratic party and in abandoning the regular Gemocratic organization, have taken the whole responsi- bility upon themseives. ‘THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY IN THE TRRRITORIRS. proceeding to a narration of the disturbances in our National Convention at Charleston, aud afterwards at Baltimore, we deem it necessary to explain the past couduet of the democratio party with regard to the ditfi- cult question of slavery in the Territories of the United Btates. This question arose, distinctly, for the irat time, { Representatives, On motion of Mr. August 12, 1846, added a pro- ng money in aid of the nego- jons for peace with Mexico, in the following words:— Provided that as an express and fuadamental condition to G+ acquisition of any Territory from the repablic of Mexico by y virtue of ens treaty whiclvaay Be nego ted between them, and to the tse, by the Executive, of y ers por luvoluntary rity R erritary, except r crime, whereof the party elall first be duly convicied. ‘The bill was lost, in the Senate, by reason of a contro- ‘versy upou this particular clause; and so the very iatro- Guetion of the question into Congress, by Mr. Wilmot, resulted in defeating a bill of the utmost importance, em Darragsing the Executive in the midst of a foreign war, ‘olonging that war twelve or eighteen months, ex a the treasure of the nation, and sacrificing in bul juent battle the lives of so many of our Cvuntrymen. We need not pursue the alarming agitation thus mis- chievousiy commenced, an agitation which defeated Gene- ral Cass, our nominee for the Presidency in 1848, and, at Last, in 1860, brought our Union to the verge of dissolu tion. That ‘catastrophe was avoided, however, by the ‘and wisdom of the democratic party in Congreas, and throughout the country, aided by the most eminent chieftains of the whig part; d the basis of settle. ment then agreed upon, and afterwards unanimously affirmed by the Whig as well as by the Democratic Na tional Convention at Baltimore, In 1852, was that Con- greas should not interpose its authority, under any cir- cumstances, whether to probibit or introdace, abolish or maintain the institution of slavery within ‘the Terri- tories. A total exclusion of the subject from Congreas, thenceforth and forever, was the olive ‘held out and accepted, North and South, by the two great political ito whieh the . We say, fallow citi- zens, that the North aud the South alike accepted this set- ‘tlement, because not only did agitation and discord cease, ‘Dut as well the abolition party at the North as the seces- sion party at the South, became almost extinct. In January, 1954, at the first #eesion of Congress nnder General Pierce’s adminuietration, a necessity arose for the establishment of Territorial governments in Nebraska and Kansas; but a fearful obstacle seemed to lie at the very thresbold. The act of Congress, appsoved March 6, 183%, sometimes called the Miscourl compromise, pro hibited slavery in all the domain over which these two Territories extended. Obviously, such an enactment was inconsistent with the principle adopted in 1850, “a ought then to have been not been and, al pever ive in fact, had acquired all the authority of age; and of the man; eminent statesmen who, waiving their ecru) io to Its constitutionality, bad accepted it as the determiua- tion of another controversy which, in 1820, bade fuir to reud the Union asuoder. The difficulty seemed, at frst, ingurmountable, inasmuch as a repeal of they'Mis- souri act might renew the agitation quelled in 1860; whereas, upon the other hand, to leave such an act of Congress in existence would be an abandonment of the very Cay ae which that happy result had been obtained. democratic party, afer some hesitation, resolved to pursue the principle of 1850 to its logteal con sequence, to abrogate the Missour! compromise Ine, 80 called, even at the bazard of pew and more dangerous agitation. Itappealed to the whig party for assistance, ‘and ome of the Soutbera represental!ves of that = Congress, responded to the appeal. But the Nor hern whigs, with few exceptions. adoned their Southern allies, ‘and, uniting with the remnant of the old abolition party, raised an alarm troughout the North that the democratic party bad thus renewed, in Congress, the ‘dontical agitation which it had solemnly promised to dis- countenance. This “fusion” of Northera whigs aud abo- Itioniste was largely strengthened by defection from our own ranks; men who abandoned ag, dot because they sup- ported the Wilmot proviso, but because they feared the deraoeratic party was about rrender the doctrive of Con, and become an active “non tatervention” b; where it could be profitably employed; and wherever ie could be 0 employed, as ia New Mexico, including Arizo na, it would be sufficiently protected by local legislation, The result has shown that slavery now prevails almost exactly where it would have been established if the Mis; sour! Compromise line had never been repesied, but had been, a8 the South demanded from 1846 until 1890, ex- tended to the Pacific ocean; that portion of the Territory of New Mexico north of 36 deg. 30 mix. being an equiva lent for the arid regions of California south of the same line. Practically, therefore, the whole dispute has been set- ted ; 80 that’ when Senator Brown, of p gamnnnd ed, at the session of Congresa just 4 the laws of Kansas prohibiting slay be annulled, only 6 of Ar- ; and upon his demand was econded by: kansas, end Senator the other band, when the my bill for abrogating the New Mexico vor slavery, all the in sat and noe members, agreed also, that by the setts and of ber of Terri of torial bills containing the Wilmot proviso. was evident, therefare, when our National Convention re- assembled af Baltimore on the 18th of June, that the wis- dom of the demooratic party, in adhering to the doctrine of “ non-intervention”” ‘overy trial and roverse, ‘would soon be rewarded by a triumph no less: than that which attended our opposition to Ba ani of the United States and our devotion to the principles of the in- dependent Treasury act. If, in the estimation of all, pene three supporters the Senatorial caucus resolutions, so calied, declaring that Congress ought to Intervene for’ the protection of slave pro- perty in the Territories ‘‘when necessary,’ the bhi pe abolition of slavery in Kansas by Territorial act did not constitute a case of necessity for snch imterven tion, what possible case ever could arise? No democrat will deny the obligation of the federal government to suppress insurrections within a Territory, and to enforce, even as against Territorial enactments, a final jadgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor can it be dei od that Congress may, in certain extreme cases ‘ond the power ress by Jui interposition, re woke or aesdod dimatar of Trerriorial organization. For what useful Purpose, then, ‘was the agitation of so dange- rous a question renewed by President Buchanan in last annual message, or inflamed by the resolutions of a Senatorial caucus, and finally thrust upon the Democratic National Convention at Charleston? EXCUSES POR ALTERING THE CINCINNAT! PLATFORM. It is said, inexcuse, that the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Dred Scott, lead to lusion that a Territorial Legis- lature bas po more authority over the subject of slaver, than Congress, and that Cougress, equally with the Terri- torial Legislatures, is under obligation to protect as well the possession as the title of slave ry in the Territo- this assertion one H ries, We do not now intend to del way or another. It is admitted, universally, that no such question was presented by the record of Dred Soott’s case, nor argued by counsel at the bar; and whatever the con- clusion at which any democrat might arrive, upon read- ing the opinions delivered by the several judges, that conclusion cannot be 0 clear of doubt as to warrant him in ceusuring those who, with an equal desire to ascertain the truth, have attained another conclusion. We must all agree that if the Supreme Court did not intend to de- cide that question (as many believe), it would bean act of bac faith, in violation of the very terms of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, to commit the democratic party, a8 a national organization, to cituer side; whereas, if the court did so intend, a is more certain than that whenever the question shall distinctly arise, and be fairly argued, the court will express its determination in language £0 plain as to command universal acquiescence. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott's case bas been carried into full execution; and whatever jadg- ment it may hereafter pronounce, in a cage depending on the validity or invalidity of Territorial enactments,must be and will be executed with equal alacrity and confidence. But, evidently until some Territorial Legislature shall, by its enactments, have impaired the right of property in slaves, there can be no use in agitating such questions; and if, as the authors of the Senatorial caucus resolutions have declared by their votes, the case of Kansas be not a proper case for Congressional intervention, it is difficult to imagipe any other im which a necessity for such interven. tion will arise. It tg said, however, that the democratic ty thus oc- cupies an equivocal position, and that the Cinsinnati plat. form is rendered susceptible of two iuterpretations. This pretext is merety plausible. The platform has no double equivocably ; but @ Territorial Legislature can exercise for the the maintenance of eiavery, a8 a Territorial inetitution, to the adjudication of the Supreme Court of the United States. Democrats may differ as to what the court should or will decide; but they have stipulated, whatever the decision may be, to carry that decision into effect. It has been argued, also, inwsmuch as one duty of go- vernment is the protection of [mw age Tia retarn for the allegiance of its subjects, that federal govern: ment cannot abdicate authorit; with respect to the Territories, but should constantly ex- i fact E | i z & bi F 7 ercise a power of immediate legislation for the of ly as well as persons within them. sit! is merely plausible. It ignores the Congress must have, and has alt of tnstrumentatities. It ignores the fact, duties of government have been divided rican cm into those of federal and ri |, and even of county, parish and Ee ment of which, and of which only, truly be predicated, and unless we the of the old federal party which our fathers repudiated in 1798, 1790 and 1800, we must deny that the governmen: of the United States can afford any protection, except iu a fede- ral capacity, to Property of any description; all othor duties of protection having been wisely contded to State or Territorial, an‘, in some cases, to merely municipal au- thorities. It is true, undoubtedly, that all forms of property recognized by the laws of the respec: tive States composing our ‘confederation, are en- itled to equal regard y their common federal agent; bet to affirm t it shall, ander the preteuce of not clearly delegated by tho States, tn the tems of their compact with — cach r, is to alirm a doc- trine fraught with the most fatal consequences. The question is nat whether property in slaves, or any other form of property, shall be protected in the States or in the H 5 z through the instramentalty of the federal ment, for compelling the Territoric#, oue and ull, to ery as an inetitotion forever, unalterable aad Time has now dissipated the fear of have returned to (heir old allegiance. of the North are beginning to understand also that the true responsibility for all the agitation which re- sulted from the Kansas-Nebraska act is upoa those who isted the application of a sound principle to tormal change of circumstances Bat, in 1864, ‘and almost as if by magical tonch, the democratic party of the North and Northwest disappeared. Ouly thirteen democrats were elected to the Honse of Representatives tn that year from all the nou siuvebolding States, Cali fornia tiretuded , four of that nomber, almost one third, were from the State of Tiiools. It required years of constant effort to satisfy the Northern people that the Kansas Nebraska act wa: not an act of Southern agzres sion, but an act for carrying inte 1 the principle established by the compromise measures of 1850. The undersigned do not mean to pallate a misconception #0 gross, but merely to relate an indispatable fect Our foader in these eventinl contests, new the candidate of tae demorratic party res f the United States, did, almost a ravel from ‘Washing tou City to n 1864, by the light of his own burning efliges Tt was after such disastrous consequence to the demo Je party, and with hearts full pprchensioa, that ates from all the States, North and Soath,assoun June, 1966! to consult with referonce agent ‘at Cincinnat:, | to public affairs. Confident in the by and appealing to the sober judgmoni of the people, the Democratic National Cvavestion, by a mnanimous vote, endorsed the Kansas Nebraska act. sod rm red t advide by its principles. The result is knows. The som noes of that convention received a guiicient electoral rotes to secure them in the Pr Presidency of the United Sta! also, that in others of the Ohio and Towa, at lon vatied by a mere plor And defiaite mejority of the popel eince has the black b! States of New York, > diana aye Ulinois, by It a party in those 5 adminwt sation of Mr. Buchanan, cooperate with aboiltionists ina” RANSAS NEM. The Kausas Nebraska bill ing opinions within tne temecratts y sapporters believing that Congress hal oonatitutinaal an thority to prohibit the existence of slavery iu the Terr tories, others, that while Congress hat not, cnch Territe rial Legisiatare had such power: aad yet others, the peither nor a Territorial Legislature oo Hidit slavery, Dut were both entraste! wilh coupied with the duty of mavntaining and pr relation. To barmonire, in fapport of the b the dem riows opinions. North aad Soath. was the task to which Step! intellect and bis ja ievce Congress bi to probibit tories, apon the one band, or, upon plavery, to delegate tho entire exer [ame Of ee ord its extent or nat ‘Terri rem, ax the agents ans the Ferri tbe the other for pose, Whilst those wae belie t torial rv ates had inherent anthority over fet delegated by Congress, but er from 4 right of sell governs in @ solemn declaration that tty t “Territorial shomkt be subject islatare prohibitions, ftations and priveiples expresset in the constifution of the Unite’ States Aud ‘order to provide a coureniont meth! f reget “Teeter” for ths. pe’ fature mi y oe the pee mai of slavery, incase any oltian by such ingisiation, the rich app ‘Court of the Uaited States wes 6) enter ‘Binth and twenty-ceventh sections of the Bul 4+ all cases Involving title to Faves, | decide t" Court of a Territory, ‘with vot reg em te the matter, 7, OF title in Comsmoveray,” by the court last gan xd, oF wating tan ‘Of the fubject of slavery withia tn: Territories, ‘the enforcement of tho Faxitice Stave ant, (rom Of the Catved States, ant thins lorie controversy , Overy to whitols chat eure nt ve Oecasion. If, a4 in the care of Kansas, a Terri should exclude slavery; th hi tue Calted States—all sceb claims won It was foreseen, as an areument for withdrawing wed thority Of Congress, even admitting the existenor of #uc nh] Sajuority, What slave laver would cork owly Uhese Fegiong | that the conduct of the d :moeratic party sf Territories, or elsewhere; the question is by which of the several divisions of government with us, and to what ex- tent by cach, this protection shall be afforded. It is a therefore, involving the whole of dif As hich, im the hi og ty og parties by which, x 5 cratic party bas been |. The first inclination of every democrat should be to resist, as faras be can law fully, the exercise of any power by the federal govern- mest, within the States, within the stories, or any where else, until aclear and definite ation of such power by the several States ean be proven from the lan- ange OF necessary import of the constitution of the nited Stater. We have thes endeavored to show you, follow citizens, > reference the subject of slavery in the Territories, for moderation, for wise for regard to @vornment, to the reserved ‘of the States and the people, to the pence: the , the continual preservation of that Union which has made us @ miracle among tLe uations. CHARLESTON CONY ; When our National Convention assembled in the city of Charleston, on the 23d of April, Jt exhibited a condition of affairs unlike that of any, other political cavention of this year. Every State of inion was fal a et. American citizen, whether of Southorn or Northern birth, from the Atlantic or the Pacific coast— from tbe inland seas which border upou Canada, from the valley of the imperial Mississippi, from the State looking out upon the Gulf ot Mexico—did not rejuice on bebolding what seemed to be, in very truth, a council of the whole republic? Why that council failed in {ls purpose, where- fore it was distracted, by whom and im what manner, we must now proceed to relate. ‘The Demoerasio. Garentice of Alabams assembled at Mon io , 1860, to appoint delegates from that “State to. the Clarleston Convention. "It chose to declare the opinion entertaine! by a majority of ite members, that no Territorial L/eisiature had any right .o prohibit the institation of slavery, aad that the constite. lion of the United States was under immediate obliga ton to maintain and that institution everywhere, “¢ tm the States, in the Territories, ant in the wilderness in which territorial governments are as yet unorganized. ”’ * | To such a declaration of opinion by the State of Alabama, there could be po reasopabie ground of objection upou the part of other States, each of taem being at liberty to com- cur or to dissent. Rot Alabama did not pause here; she | instructed ber delegates to present those resolutions to the Convention at Charleston; and im case the opinion therein expressed was not adopted by that convention, hor delegates were immediately to withdraw. And, as it couscious of the antagonistic attitude assumed by such in structions toward the Gemnoretto pacity at large, the —_ ry Convention & Committees npea whom Shivacawteatys as soon as the Alabama deleg utes had withdraws from the Cou yeation at Charleston, of sali ing &@ State Convention to decide upon ulteriog mearures. We desire te speak ith entire respoet of tie State of Ala bama, and without questeaing her right at ary time to adopt such resolutions as to hor seemed best, we are con strained to say that the atiitede whieh she thus assumed, with regard to the democracy of other States, was a vio nations! organization of our democratic party can 90 maintained. If each of the States had followed her ex Ample—and each of them wre tie peer of Alabame—the National Convention could not have proceeded one step; there would have been no room for counsel, for inter cS ‘of opinion of sentiment, for concil tion, harmoay , and united acting, After the Charteston Convention hed prescribed the rules of ite proceeding aud ve the credantials of all ite delegates tn the usual method, it a ypeinted @ commit woe from cach State to report a platform Of princy ‘That committee, after long and tedious sexsi three reports; one by the members from seveuteen Stater, one by the members (rom Arwen States, sad one by Mr. Rutler from the State of Mec chusetts, The first (majority) report war in sabstantial ateordaace with the instructions of Alab uae hele gates; the eecoad consiatert of an atdition to thy Cimetiaatt platform, declaring Usat the (rc oeratic party woul! abide by whatever decisions bad been, oF might thorenter be made by the Sapreme Court of the United states the thirt was the ee ee any important a tii. tion. After a full earnest debate, ithe came es) ‘the Convention was not satisfied with ports, and accordin © Motion war mute # to recommit ai! of —Alabama, as weil ae | the States which afterwards seceded from the Qvavention, voting for this recommitment. frame day (April 28) the committee agsin re avd again the 48 Were three jo Bummer, the , y Mr. Batler, of Massachasette, being the same which he had previously aaomitted. The secoad report of the majority consited of thea three resomtions — Piret—That the government of a Territory oreantrns by an | wt or Congress t proviscnal and temporary; mod. dariog iu grietence all eitiaena of the Uakad a aa equal rahe to petile with their property in with yal cher | rights, euther of persia de property, being destroged or in paired by Congteeslogal or Terrrortal legiaiation ‘Raonnd That K te the daty of Ure federal goverament in sll fa daparunenta, to the righws of gone and propert { where rer ele Gousiliuvowal auchorty exvemde. « protecting « right of property, usurp avy power | lation of the usages and principles apon which only a | Lape ng settlers ta a T: ade- cx Poulton for ae Ca by ae re | mi! dé the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of «ther ‘State thus organized Ought to be admitied into the federal Uatso whether hat cousttuusn OF Fe ‘Sognizes the institution of alavery. Nothing could be more and unsat | “truisme” of the | o further amendmnests or resolutions being Ne admics- ible by parliamentary rule, the Convention to avo, ‘at rjc te spond of Mr. Butler, and then A recurring ir. nels resolution, a freon, North Carolan (at. the leave, by unanimous consent, to ad- Brown) obtained dress the Convention, and expostulated against | the resolntion (ag it then st in very earnest terms. | It was immediately rejected by a vote of 288 to 91; the States of Alabama, Misslasippl, 4 ; Georgia, and Florida declining to vote on either side. With a view to the amendment of that resolution, 80 as to remove the objection thus — | sideration was entered. Such amendment could only be sidering that vote; the previous question seconded and sustained by the Convention delegate from North Carolina bad spoken. Pending this motion a, eernaaiae before any vote uj it, and, consequent anendment Por ‘ir. Samuel's resolution oul be proposed, the Alabama from the Convention, followed by ten of the gates from Louisiana, thus leav’ 8 vote; the entire delegations from Mississippi, Florida, and the lnsyor part of the. delempeices eae uth ‘These delegations with- most formal manuer; not contenting \- seives with speeches on the subject, but delivering writ- ten protests to be entered at large upon the, of the Convention. EXCUSES FOR THE SECES*10N AT CHARLESTON. Various excuses have been assigned for this extraordi- nary conduct, but none «f them, in our judgment, will bear examination. It has been’ said, for instance, that the Convention adopted an unfair rule of voting, or one which enabled a mitority of the delegates to control the majority. Here is the co ‘That in any State which has not ed or directed, by ite Bute Convention, bow its vote may be given, the Convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote. Tals enl wis Sdoptall om. Teemaeey, %, by a vote of 394 aguinst 207 delegates, whi sions ‘denon- strates its fairness, if any demonstration were requisite. It acknowledges the right of every State to bind her dele- gates, but secures to cach his own vote, as against any combination of ie coe where the State has not chosen thus to sul him. The rule was ap- plied, at Charleston, in the decision of all sere: no complaint was: made of it (in Lests or their speeches)'by the de.egations which withdrew. The first complaint, so far as we can ascertain, was in the ad- dress published by eighteen members of the Convention had from ted as hardly uy more. The ru ; witness the fact that delegates from bama and Jouisiana were compelled to withdraw from by the act of their colleagues, against that ten delegates from Georgia, who remained in the Convention, were not allowed to vote {onder General Cashing’s decision) because # majority of c delegation bad withdrawn. Of what possible importance can the assertion be that a diflerent result, either in r to the platform or the candidates, would have attended a rule authorizing each delegate to control his own vote, without reference to the instructions of his State? In Pag, Yack Sivars, Indiana and Louisiana, for example, the convention which in- structed the delegates was the convention which appointed them; ere that all these accept te, to obey the instructions, would, in each 3 c a8 we bave shown, by a majority of almost "nother complaint i, that the report of the majority of the committee on resolutions wae by the Con- vention—as being the voice ofa ‘of the States. Several answers: themselves at once. 1. Such was not method of adopted by the convention, and never had beea the tm any previ- rt of thecommittee us Con’ ould prescribe tbe patform, any not s ‘of the sl Convention, it is evident from their tant inlacenra given) that several of the States would have chosen other not: ie to the delegations which uy re. ac su re- tired. Every one of them voted for its nt. 4. The second of the commitiee never did, asa whole, command assent of a majority, the committoe- man from Missouri (General Clark) announcing that he would move, at the proper time, to strike out thig all im- | portant regolution: — | That it is the duty of the federal government, in all ite | departnenta, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Tefrhiories, wherever else iis coustl- | tutional authority extends. It required the committeeman from Missouri to consti- tute the majority (seventeen) of which we have beard 80 much. Without farther argument, therefore, this pretext iaappears. It has been sald, , that the States which favored the Free ud rity platiorm were democratic States, and ow ‘were hopeless, or, at least, unreliable. ‘We could, if it wore necessary, prove this to be untrue; but even if it were true, in the largest sense, what folly | to be governed by such considerations. Those seventeen States had not a majority of all the electoral votes, and | could accompliah nothing without assistance. No wise general, upon the eve of an t, would subdstract from the weakest column of bis army in order to rein- force the strongest; he would, on the contrary, take means to strengthen the feeble, even at the expense of the rm. But, iv a higher sense, and upon the noblest cousidera- tion of democratic policy, such inyidious distinction be- twoon the States ought to be di 4 | Our party bas ever commended itself alike to the North and to the South, as a party in whict all the States will find their interests equally protected and their honor equally obeerved; and whenever we abandon that safe ground, we falsify our ancient and st profession, and degrade our National Convention to the level of the Convention at Chicago. Every true believes that Massachusetts, as well as South Carolina, would en- sure Ly peed na, 4 State, Cy bg to fiuence of democratic policy, and, therefore, na. tional conventions, the democracy of Massachusetts—foe- bie and even insignificant as others esteemed them—have been treated as brethren and as equals. Reems of such a rule Polk, and Cass, and Pierce, and 4 were nominated for the Presidency, and three of them elected. What need of any other rule at Charleston? What, assuredly, but the presence, for the first time in our Mistory, ofan intepse, fanatical and mischievous spirit of sectionalism on the part of the delegates who seceded? If the rule for which those delegates contend had pro- vailed heretofore, some ef our national conventions would have been curionsly constituted. That of 1844 would Alabama, Arkansas. Ulinots, Indiana, lows, ean, Mississippi, Missouri, New ry Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin; while that of 1856 would have excluded the States of and Kentucky, which voted for Mr. Buchanan, but tucluded Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Obio, Michigan, iowa and Wisconsin, whieh voted against him It will scarcely be argued that delegates oagtt to be ad- | mitted into @ national couvention aud there tenied tbe right of voting in accordance with their own cviction®, ‘The objection amounts to nothing, therefore, uriews to the Cigtranchisement, from time to time, of such of the States as for any reason peculiar, loca! or temporary, vote against our ——_ nominees. How would such a rule ope rote four years ‘The beast of the demooracy is in its national character ——a ans Sree eenaee Paeneaee breth- ren hasetts}have not achieved a victry in any Presidential election &\nce 1820, we «lo not des>ise them, — pt nd admit them, on terms of equality, vo our aa conveations. party, or else to rein it No politica ina (at pon ouch terse: beeause he would be less to them. We bave sufl- inor ities heretoore by tently guarded the rights of cack of our nominees w receive two tiirds of | dveed toa plain, definite, and | WHAT OCCURRED AT CHARLESTON APTRE THE cry | Finding iteeif thus suddenly deprived of the cocas | and | ensistance of the democratic party in echt Stsier, the Com vention abandoned ail attempts modify o eniarge the Cincinnat) platform, aad proceeded t tie om nation of candidatce | \* But, (a order that ao reasonable object be | elieged to the vali fity of ite nominations, the Coovention — altered the rule of ali former conventions, aut required | Dot merciy two thirds ef the electoral vote. ¢ cca, bat two thirds of all the electoral votes. Pity #even Dalits entued, and im the course of those ballots, repentediy. a majority of the entire Coovention * At Raltimore, oo aietion of Governor Wieklite 0 Lowtsla 88. ae folowing reeolwton wee adopied waantinody ia Lew of that propwed Mr Saeed ac Char caton — | O kewived. Post bie ta areorces of the Cincineati platform ry p tae (edera goveraata. ad dowry by Cre, UrRaoe latter committee reported, on the 2d of May, esolutions (the seoond majority report) which bab roied Barscne Bodoare ly Steer Jokes botany " : Mr. Yancey, of Alabama moved that the be amended #0 ag to strike outthe words “of the United ” after the words * ”" and insert ‘constitutio: same word as orten'as It oveurs in the report. withdrawn, Several days of hesitation, doubt, and controversy among themselves ensued ; but at length ascertaining that the Democratic Convention had adjourned to meet at Baltimore, on the 18th of June, the seceders were com- d to adopt some definite course. Mr. Jackson, of then proposed this resolution, and it was adopted: party of the United Stace ty, and in of June; and, in order to secure con- cert of action, that the of representation be the same as that upon \bich the States have been represented in the Charleston Convention. Another quotation from their journal is somewhat sig- nificant:— On motion of Mr. Barry, of Misslastppi, the following resolu- tion was adopted: Resolved, That the delegates from South Carolina be re- Beorporsts theme in Set containing oo much of te peo” Soreeentl basins som of the Convention { this’ Convention with- it was ved, That the South Carolina delegation be appointed a arrangements for ine Convention fo be bela Ej I i Hi f fl Hi Zz hd i : 5 aes eaaliitie Mr. Wright, of ansburz. rose and nominated Hon. A. Burt, of Abbe — ‘ ir. ask near frieuds, and. from February, have never SOB ee tied tal tes Okay oes would soon have to chose between slavery and disunion. Mr. Burt received after this declaration all but one and one-eleventh of the votes cast, and was of course elected. Such are the avowed sentiment: of two geut) men with whom the scceders from the Democratic National Conven- tion at Baltimore, afterwards united at Richmond in af firming the nomi: (ion of Mesers. Breckinridge and Lane. FLORIDA. ‘The State Convention of Florida reappointed most of the delegates who bad eeceaed at Charleston, but accredited them to the Richmond Convection only; and yet those de- legates, while they did not even claim admission into the Democratic National Convention at Balttmore, were ad- mitted into, and constitut sda a the at the Brovkinridge and Maryland Institute, by which Lane were nominated. waar, The delegates from this State who seceded from the Con- ition at Charleston inted as ap Pointed to the Convention at Richmond, by the State De- mocratic Committee, in virtue of a power specially con. | ferred. They also were by the formor | Convention as regular delegates, but refused to take their fy is i #5 ‘their appointment. A mere “rune” , without anthority ‘the seerders ns dole Convention at Halti- them as delegates to tue Con- im parsnance of a oall from several demo- New Orleans, sanctioned by tho in the National Dom seratio az Hid if oes 32k iH i i z unfaithful, appo: a pew to the Democratic National Convention ALARM A. Ip thie State, the committee appointed at Montgomery, ‘ f the ft of thie rewntution by th weed, we find at ‘Schumore ua the Following rewote | ten, was incredicet by Mr. Church, of New York, was ‘That the cradentin’s of all persons claiming seate Rew rea, . ta this con: ention, made vacent by the gecession of deloguies a on, be Preferred to the commitiee. which fe hereby ‘soon aa practiond’® to eaamiae the same, names of (he pergoas €alked to Guck sesi8. tae re Two of the eight delegates from this State did not se- c+ eat Charleston, and 00 State Convention was sir wards assembied.’ In each Congressional district, how ever, two conventions bad been called, the delega’ss to which had been all to the meeting o” the ‘ harleston Copvention, and, of course, without refe-ence 10 ite action, to nominate ACTION AT BALTIMORE. It appears, from what we have said, that all the dele- tes to the Richmond Convention, except from the four ‘es of South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama, were Meg admitted, , in the National Con- bm othe de =A ty, and evel ene hy ‘of the democt party, and even (as we ite self-reepect, for the sake of reunion, harmony’, and ultimate success. South Carolina and Florida did not apply for admission; and, therefore, it cannot be said that any injustice was inflicted upon them. In the cases of Louisiana and Alabama, the new dele- tions were admitted, and those who represented the rleston seceders were rejected. The decision of these two cases, therefore, must constitute the sole pretext for the secession at Baltimore. ‘We have related the facts of each case, as understood by the majority of the Committee on Credentials, and by the majority of the Convention; and rh confident gle delegate accredited to the rival Convention at Rich- mond, we, nevertheless, submit to you, fellow citizens, whether a decision between two delegations from Louisi- mocracy selecting our candi We can give to this whole affair no other int and we denounce such meddiesomeness, y attempt to the control of the democratic party, and even to dictate its nominees, by those to whom the people 6 AT BALTIMORE. ‘The sole for this, we repeat, was the admission tes from Louisiana and Alabama, rejection of their adverse a Convention had decided similar controversies at Charleston with regard to the States of-New York and Illinois, but no secession oreven disturbance ensued. In the case of New York, the Louisiana ‘upon one side, and the - op aa the It is too ri ia be ridiculous but pane eo from Kentucky, , Callorata seocde 4 the Convention withstanding ap- peals then bave seceded at Haltimore, There must bea cause bebind frankiy, was a deter- mination to set policy, and of the Pur pose of secede. for the fact that upon the second ballot, by Douglas received only 181%; votes, Mr. ‘Breckiuridge re, ceiving 1044, Mr. Guthrie 4 votes, the States of South Carolina (8) and Florida (2) having authorized no dele- gates to ay Convention al Baltimore, Here is the ballot as _ iy FA z : & eacatbBowarocsaptukee Sen: is oe electoral of the democratic party for the Presidency of the United States. Was it irregular thus to propose a candidate? If so, Lewis Cass was irregularly nominated at Baltimore in 1848—which no man ever pretended-—for the same me- im his case Subsequently, Gov. Futrgatrick, of Alabama, having de clined the nomination for Vice President, the Democratic National Committee (ia pursuance of autborfy conterred it) tendered that position to an eminent son of Goor- ee po jalon wi and prigy and pleasure: = MEETING OF THE RECEDERS AT RALTMORR. Tt did not rine to the dignity of 8 convention; it was a of odde and ends, without formal pro authority from any State, in opea con bape en Policy aad democratic uages ing to Richmond, althongh the delegation from South Carolina was there waiting for them, and adjourning the “Convention” front wd i, for their accommodation. invented the farce, of an impromptu tand Tostitute in Baltimore; and Fathering at the wing consummated their scheme, by the adoption of a means » and the nomination of John C. Arkantas,@oorg'a and 4 there, “by acciama- ifying wha. they speech at Washington sity acceptia gular nomination, Mr. Breckinridge permitted. himecie [a TO Maryland Institute was a such, entitled to his allegiance. w citizene—Hore ia their own list of ail the dele. tro participated 1p thet affair:—- of the ‘HL QWest, T. Butler King, Julien Martridge, M. Moore, A. , James M. k, Nelson Tift, T. J. 0. C. Gibson, P. Tracey, 1.. D. Stroheckor, Thos. - Hill, Wen, Phillips, Jamos M. Barawell, G. J. Fain, Lewis Tami: B James —ty ryt Sea hagies John mes A. ¥ ‘ . John ‘A. Cobb, David ©. Barrow, MC. Fulton. Now York.—Augustus Schell, —— Bartiett California. —Austin FE. Smith, D. & Gregory, John A. Dreidilbis, Charles L. Scott, proxy for G. W Patrick: it ¥, Langdon, proxy for L. R. Bradley; @. L. Dudiey, ' G. Leach, John Dishman, Colberd’ D. Robert althoug! tin | our opinion that the Convention erred in admitting a sin- | | |¥ { | It will be observed, also, that hg =e 8, Wilson, . Matthews, C. G. , B. thews, B. F. Liddell, Joseph B. Davis, Wirt Adams, Alex- Lansing Stout, J. F. Tamerick, ase J. Ste G. B, Crosbee, A. P. Dean’ North Carolina. —Wn, Landis, W. W. -Avery, Lott ny in Walker ve, James P, Hill, T. J. coluuas ‘ills, We A. LBD 5. naan Ste R. R. Bridges, A. Moore, W. S. Steele. Florida.—James B. Owens, W. D. Barns, Jo: Joba Williams, B.E, Wardlaw, Geo. W. Call, Chas. E. Dyke, Wat. A. Quarles, J. D. O. N. Baker. ed Robb, James D. WL Meteland, ‘Thomas, .L. Me , Danie! Donelson, Thomas’ Meniers, John D. Riley, J. B . Cummi Matthews, F. eGavoch, H. W, Wal Andrew Ewing, RD. Powell, John K. Howard, C. Vaugn. Massachusetts.—Caleb Cashing, James L. Whitney, W. C..N. Swift, P. W. Leland, Alexander Bradford L. Wales, Isaac H. Wright, James Riley, Benjamin F. Hallets, George B. Loring, E. S, Williams, ‘Johnson, Benja- goin F. Butler, Abyah ‘W. ‘Chapia, David W. Carpenter, ‘Arkansas.—J. P. Johnson, De Resi Johnson, T. ©. Hindman, John A. Jo man, Josiah Gould, Van H. Manning Kentucky.—Richard M. J, Mason, 'W. Quarles, Robert Gale. drick. ‘Alabama.—L. P. Walker, A. B. Meck, H. D. Smith, W. 1. Yancey, F. 8. Lyon, W, M,' Brooks, RG J, ea . Soott, J. H.R. Dawson, T. J. Burnett, Eli 8. Shorter, J. Mitchell, W, ¢. A 8. Van de Graff Li Jobn Erwin, G. D, Johnson, F. G. Norman, Kenned, . R. Win Moors, E. W. joore, E. vy, field Muson, Alexander Saod ¥ Browne, H. Forney, D. Brozeman. Texas.—Guy M. Bryan, H.R. Runnels, F. 8. Stockdale, F. R. Lubbock, J. F. Crosby, Tom P. Ochiltree. Misouri.—C. G. Corwin, W. J. Melibe ney. to the Convention Om me aK It will be observed, from this vote, that thirteen —Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island , Coanectici Jersey, ’ Delaware, South Tilinois, , Wisconsin, and delegate present. These States may be of no quence in Mr. Breckinridge’s estimation; but, 80 nationality is concerned, at Chicago made a better exhibition. tit iif and a balf basa tagrtcaten oT appears among Convention, did not, as bis ‘recent address Ty delegates, although that State at t tes «State has foraia, bya ‘majority of proxies, and [ww hoe majority of the delegation. Twelve indi have been present from Porgy were cast, which shows that, Bes fille experimen’ of procced- | | Union, and the integrity and euppows “national democracy” in duo form, and — | | | \ , seceders in that delegation.” North see were represented by majorities of delegations; but Kentucky, Mr. mri gave him only four and @ half votes which that Stace is entitled in the Florida was re; ted, and her threo votes delegation which was accredited only to the vention at Richmond and which, by a letter: rogular Convention at Baltimore, refused or to recognise that b-dy in auy Alabama each by di refused, as we bave alread: National Convention of the twenty eight delegates to cast nine poy to nine votes, was r ett Le Cattorsin, with of promice, Georgia iforpia, with @ m: 5 vas, Sotitied tn all to teen sippi, Oregon and Texas, ty eight votes, are the only States which it can be alleged Shadow of evidence or truth, were. a the Beceders? Oowr ‘vention with a full or an untainted delegation. Breckinridge ‘The epvarent vote by which and were nominated ts 106, from which, however, that which we do not copeede—that all the votes be dedi for rea- First, as to New York. Mr. Augustus Schell anda Mr, Bartlett represented that State as seceders, and cast two votes. Their right to speak for New York, the action of the State Convention, by which the delegation to Charies- ton was commissioned. lowing same Cal Scheli and Burtiett, from New York. 4 unit throughout at Charleston and Baltimore, iu accord- ‘ance with the decision of the State Convention. is State voted as North Carolina.—There were but fifteen delegates ré- cs this State, and yet the seceders foot up eight and & baif instead of seven and a ball votes, which is all this delegation should have cast. Arkansas —Four votes were counted from Altbough one and one half votes were truly and represented in the National Convention, by delegates whe reiused to recede Minnea—A Mr. Johnson, who was never before as a delegnte from Miunesoto, cast one he should have given, if any at all, but the vote. if ER 2 8 coxct esioN. Fellow Citizeo—We bave thus explained at Covtroversy between the su of Breckineidge Lane tupon the one side, and Se regular nominees democratic party upyn the other. It remains for us to add, as the sentiment of cratic National Committee, and as the uni ment of the supporters of compromise whatever is admissible. tain the strength of the national State. North and South, and we We have made no proposition for in any state; and we earnestly ex itions indignantly, whenever and if we have any friends in any State, let those a State convention at once and nominate af ticket, pledged to the exclusive support Johnson. We can agree to nothing else; know edg¢ the right of a factious minority own terms of co operation—euffer ons of the democratic under » our democratic the pativoal organization therefore, to act immediately; pate ape ity tm ge MO, yd Joyal & gE F i i I [ E 2F 8 i i ! | i j hE i Es i E : inf li hr it hoods, take po \sten to no suggestion . Bvery Vote indireetiy, at least, for Lincsin and for inaugnrating an “irrepressible conflict” North and the South, and therefore @ vote unjon of the Sta.es, Be net deceived by the plausible assert! enemies. Breckinridge and Lane bave co tho least, in any of the Nor:hern States. recerve one electoral vote in the Nort! bape, in three or four Northern States, will ‘an electoral ticket. Oa the other band, if the Southern do now d+ eert the democracy of the North, it end of the alliance between them. What remains, to the South if sbe would maintain the constitution, of the cons quent election of de te bet for 2 § 4 i333% j not have Hi ee es the cordial paglas and Jounsont e comm't these ieeues to your determination. importance cannot be ever estimated; they involve the ‘ty and of that Union it has ee ‘Sis TAYLOR, (onal GEO. FE. PUGH, ALBERT RUST. fate of the democratic faithfully, and coustant — : nee ILROADS, YORK TO THE WHITE MOUNTAINS See es ‘the ny BW YORK AND. 14R1 COMPANY. N’ ane To NERA $e a and after Monday, June 25, iz treet station, New