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

Newspaper of The New York Herald dated July 19, 1860 Page 2
Text content (automatically generated)

J2 THE DOUGLAS HATIOIAL IAHFESTO. A Fair and Square Fi*ht with the Breckinridge Party* ??0 COMPROMISE MATEIER ADMISSIBLE." AdmbI to the Democrat * of the United St a ten, Ac., Ac., Ac. PraonuTic National Exacrnvs Comum* Room*, f w*shmutvs Citt, Jul/ IS, 1900. / Fmxow OmnBsThe under* igued have it in ch*rge, at the lD*i?aoo of the national committee of the democratic part/ loaddree* you tome word* of eaplanatiou and oounw'. You are all adv 1 ted, b? tlii* lime, that a minority of the delegate* seceded from oo> iegul?r National Coarenlion at Baltimore, and have proposed John C Breckinridge and Joseph Lane an their audldalo* tor the Presidency aad Vioe Preoidetic/ of the ( cited state*. It la an occurrence without example in our history; and for the oooaeq nonce* which may ensue?Involving, possibly, the ertatem e of that t'uiou which our fatlierw besought u*constantly to maintain?there if a grave responsibility somewhere. if the responsibility be upon these ef ua who bare adhered to the anoteut organlzatlo* of the democratic party, whnee banner* now display the honored nutneh of Stephen A Douglas and Horeenel V. Johnson, as the regular democratic nominees, we caa but protest. In all sincerity, that we sought no unjust advantrge of our seceding tvlhreu, and have erred, if stall, through mere mis judgment. It appears to ua. however, upon a careful and deliberate review of all that transpired at Baltimore as wall m at Charleston, that toe supporters or wessnB eckinrldge and Iju>o, in violating the settled bujii of the democratic party aud in abandoning the regular democratic organization, have Ukcu the whole re?puuslb; ;ty upon themselves. tux Qi'Mfroa ot ulxtkrv ix nix TXRRiTosm-. Before proceeding to a narration of the disturbance* in Our National CbnTentiou at Chsrb-aton, aud afterwards at Baltimore, we deem it iiecr-esary to explain th. oast Conduct of the democratic party with regard to the difficult question of slavery in the Territories of the L'oitod Bt.'ite*. This question arose, distinctly, for the tlrst time, wrhen the House of Koprvsontutites, on motion ol Mr. Vi!mot, of lViinsy Imicb. August 12. IMS, added a promote to the bill appropriating money in aid of tho nogo. t ations for peace with Mexico, in the following words:? hrorlded that a* sn impress and fuudamentd eondiilon to acquisition of any 1 e.rritorj from the repnblie of Mexleo by tiie United Plains to uruoli.i; treaty which ma\ be neco listed between them, and tu'.ne use. b' the Kxeeutlve. ol Uie Dioneys herein appioprialed. neither icavsrx nor lurolunturv servitude shall ever euat iu any pa-i of add Territory,'except for crime, whereof lira part) shall tlrat be duly cooxicied. The bill was lost, in llie Senate, by reason of a contro T0*sy upou m is particular ciaute; auu go ior very luiroduclion of the question into Congrevs, by Mr. frilmnt, ronuIlea in defeating u bill of the utmost importance, em turrnasug Uw Executive In the mid?! of a foreign war, and In prolonging that war twelve or eighteen months, expending lb* manure of the nation, and Karntlring in subsequent battle the lives of ?o many of uur c.untrymcn. We need not puraue the alarming agitation thus mischievously commenced. an agitation which defeated Gnurat CasB, our nominee for the Presidency In 1848, and, at 1 vst, In 1850. brought our I'moa to the verge of dissolu lion That cataatropbe wa- avoided, however by the firmness and wisdom of the democratte party In Congress, and throughout the country, aided by the most eminent chieftains ot the whig party; and the basis of settlement then agreed upon, and afterwords unanimously attirmed by the Whig as well as by the IK mocratlr Na tionaJ Convention at Baltimore In 1852, was that Con gress should not interpo-e its a ilh riiy , under anv cir< utnatanoea, whether to prohibit or introduce, abolitb or maintain the tsstttutioa ot Slavery wahin the Tarrltorles. A total exclusion ot the subject from Congress, thenceforth and forever, was the oltve branch held out and accepted. North and South, by the two great political parties into which the American people were then divided. We say, follow citizens, that the North and the South alike accepted this settlement, because not only did agitation and discord cense, but as well the abolition parly at the North as the seces ion party at lbs So.ih, became almost extinct. In January, 1854, at the flrst session of Congress nnder Oeneral Pierce's administration, a necessity arose for the establishment of Territorial governments in Nebraska and Kansas, but a fnarlul obstacle seemed to lie at the very threshold. The ?ct of Congress, approved March 8, 1820. sometimes called the Missouri compromise, pro bibited slavery In all the domain over which these two Territories extended Obviously, such an enactment war inconsistent with the principle adopted In 1850, and ought then to bars been repealed by name. But it had not been repealed, and, although never operative In fact, had acquired all the authority of age; and of the many eminent statesmen who, waiving their scruples In regard to Its const 'ut.onahty. bad accepted It a* the dcteraina t on of knottier controversy wimn, in n?u, vwrimrio rood tlie Union aaunder The difficulty seemed, at first, njumocntable, luastnuuh aa a repeat of tbe??Mia ouri act might renew the agitation quelled in Ik.'.O whereaa, upon the other hat,;, to leave ruch an art of Gogreaa it ntstentv would lie an abandonment of the very prtneiple through which that happv remit had been obta.nod. The democratic party, after ?ome hrslutioa, -e-oi\ ed to pursue the prinoipi- o| la.'O to Its logical nn eequcne*. to abrogate the Miuour romproiniae I ne. ? ? ailed. aveo at the barard of new and more dangerous a. latlon It af>pea.< d to the whig party for asaistanoe. and Mime of U?e Southern NgimWln* of that party, in l ?grcaa, responded to the ap|*al Hot the Nor hem w'ltga, with few ear* ;<t ?w, ahtndnned tltelr Southern at'.>ea, and, uniting with the remnant of the old abolition party, raiaed an alarm Inroughout the North tliat the ilemocratie party bait thin- renewed In Owigreaa, the ' I-titl at agiutiot which it had solemnly promised to dm countenance Tin* tut ion of Northern whlgs nud ubo ll.enista waa largely bjr defertlon from our own rank.* men whu abandoned ui, not because they supported the It ilmot proriMO but bMMte they fear .si the d Moeral.r party w ?? about to surrender the doctrine of " too nterrentiot'' by Ongfrsa. and l>eoome au a*t re agaot, through the inatrureutal.ty of t ie (Moral g ivenim nt. for compelling tin Trrritor: s, ue a id all, to a-rept slavery ae an !n?t it t:t n forever unalterable and uncontrollable. Time lias now dts-ipifed the fear* of r any, naJ thrr hare relumed to their old allegiance Pi- people of the North are beginning to understand.alao that the true responsibility fhr al' tne agitation which re suited from the haioas-Net>raaka art u umm those who r listed the application of a sound pr to a merely to-mai rhanpoof rn rnttwp- Hut. in ISM 'Uldvtuy. aud aimmt aa if by ma# <ai touch. the ilinv-rrattc party of the North Ml Northwest d sapprarrd. Only th.rtnen 1 mocmt4 were eh-cled to toe ft-xi < of Flrpr-rotative* ir. that year (' ra at! the not, -Imrrhddtng flairs, tali f -mta included. and 'fr.r o' that n. mtut, aim at one third were fr-aa the Mate of |i!-nol? ft repu --rd ream o' r.,n?unt effori t>. satisfy thr Kuftkrrl fw|de that the K?o.aa Nebraak . a-t ?ra rv>t so art of > thorn aft rot i n, but an act for carry nj into rrtwt tf?o princ pie oaUb'Jitx-d by thr compromise tnr? .? of ISSO. The t-ial r?.,ried .1 . 11 . a-, 'f |?a i at. . m . mrptiou an rroan, but merely to re'nto aa Ind ?potab'e fact Oar I -nder in tlx-?<- rv mini rone ta, n-?r tlx- candidate of the d-'tn-a ratlc part) for tlx- I'ro* t. nry .f the I nitol -uloa did, aimwt without erarftaratlon. trarrl from Waaliinjton City tot Way n 1V4 by tlx* liyui of h;j own burnny rflly ea ft war after aixh diaaptroos mn-c-nimr<# to the d-mo C'atis part;. , and will, hearts full ot appri brnsina, that our defecates frosi all tba Mates, S. rth at.d f vitn.a: ens bird at Ctorlnnat . In June. ISftd. to cooa-tlt with reformer to pubic alfh.ra Oaitidrnl :n Ibr justice of our chitae. and appeal nc to the sober Judyro -ti; o' the {ample. tli Democmtic National Oareat. n. by a mian intone -Me. endorsed the Kaxiaaa Nob rank* act. ar.d resolved to alid by it* Tin- rr- I i- . known iue uoom n?? of (hat raorrnttoa rw-rpd a *u1.-,r-nt number id eieriora! rot** b> aeror* them in tb Prrridrnry aa<l Vine lv*#,.Jnicr of io* I'uttfd OU'-eo Tb* fact wandewioyod, alao. thai in otb<-?* of tb- v-rlbe o >i?l*>- N'cw York, (>bio and Iowa, at lea-?tb* Mack r*p-ibiti an* htd pre rati*d by a mr-.? pi r.Utly,and la nppm.lloa to a OMar and d*anlt* mvortty of lb- pop 'a* nd* At ao tun. a nca haa tb* black republican rtrlt all iln*-l power tn the tMMca of Nca Ut. Now Jersey. i-iat-j iran.a. (M?i>\ la d.ana u ! t br it* fan lift Jtb. bat in ecory tn tano* |?y M-m* r?rli nation wth :h- r-maani of U. Amcvi i. part; in that* >.?i< I, tn utiaoi "i-f?w*d t? tbc admin, .tin or M-. Hi ri.ui;. , but nt rraalwOed to coop* at* * tb abot.tionb nan 'rr- V.rntta! e1 riitw Ktt-W tdlUHt n.u. lb* Ncbraaaa but tu a nnnpinnin of c Hid: t lag ojeanoa wtthtn in* temneial1? p?.rty: a>.-n of l?? oipport*ra bettering that Cmpn ha 1 o>m*Mtiiti.-n*l an thority to prohibit lb- nttatonCc ot ?la.**ry to lb* t.-rr lorica. oth.-m, that while ( ip. a h?1 n-'.t, rarh T*rr*r> rial I*fpBlBtarc had Mirh p.wer ,nd ret other*. lh*i neither t'Ooprra* nor a Territorial lc||lil*ltrr ?mH pm hlbtt alarcrr, but tr. rr both ent-uat--1 wnb lb* |u? r, coupled w tb lb* dtilr vf mint ?mlrr ?nd prd-ct.. g that rotation Tu bartnoo. *, in rapport of tli* b II, en. It ra r ou? opinion*. and unite tli* Jr no party. North and Snath, upon a fair an I flr bar t? of a-tim, -wa* Ui* taak to whirl. Sti-j-uen A It-tcu*- a kttv.>cd bta lntoUarl and bio tnfl tone It*nt-? rat* ?b > ?>*l red Ibtt Ooagreaa bid pew?r to prohibit *i*r*rr a 'ih:n ih* f.-*ri torion. upon Lb* on* band, or, upon lb* Hh*r, t? m?. .(tin plarrrr. afro*d to del**?'* tb ratirt t rtr v nt ? i b author it, what**or Ma axlrnl or nttn** might h?,(It* Territorial I-ag iala? irm, a* the agent* and MibMitnto* id Coo*11? for that p?ir )?*-*, wbil-l liiux- *to belter* I lint Abe Territorial ltr-gHaliir*# hi I inh*r ri( a -Hr-rltr ?>r*f Ab* auttpv-t?author. i> ml .b-b-e??*d Or r--ngi*-*, h-t mrting from a right of Mil gorani-ii*ul ? -mr-ori I In a oolema declaration that in iii? of rr T*rrltorial lagtalalarr ehoutd h* ><hwct to lieprr-h.blt.oac, binitat on* and pr ?. pbw e*pr. t*~! In tb* raantHution of lb* I'nHr-d ?tnr* Ant a order to prortd* a cwrrnMI m*ib<>t for atWtinn tan oantitnttoaality of any art nrim-h a ferribu utl l.-g.lalam might adopt whether f?r tb? pf b.hiln,. ... SN4 eg*Tt*w4 ?<r ?arli Mat ton I If r?M uf awal t h* SnprMB* Oimrt n( t*? |/j,t*-i ?n |>J lb? Wirt tw-Mjr ?vf?Ui m Ui" Mil << to tartoto "all <-aa?w laminae tit* m oWrrt, .!/?. oM t fcti? 9apriwao Court of a T*rrHorjr. ' Hkxii rr?irl t? ?' V*ioo of IhO Malt?r. propgto, or I.tlx to i>m r?.?.*r?r Ml aloo, all caa<w Will njr tho oo.irt laM aa? ?!. . r i?T Hf dwtrlrt fourt of a iWrit wjr, i?r antr jil^j -it efU?r of Oi* aaMl ?nar??, < npoa aar ant of h if.? rt f>? uirolTln* lit# qiMftioa ??f pMwu frroion rtf p>tAO objort of tltaao pro vn on j ?u |o btai'ti ail <1,< CiMMa of tho atihfoot of atatrorr with n Mi Tttlt'irir -, fiiapl U?? Mfornai*?l of U? FiiiMtri- Viam am, dram fha Oaayrot af tb? Cottarf Hutm, ail Utn< train , a^ fkrw poaotblr. rrrrt - nntrr>r?rxy to trMrU thtl nop. | maid gtra oocaama. If, a? m tbo r?? m Kimii, a I cilortal I^fnialaraatoaM owlwi in ih of Now S?iioo, ot?<?atd jproto* and mi "ton it, t in abt taairod to canwal U>o ?Ui"lty of u> i^ ? hi lant, otto war or an?tl?rr, c IJ r i. llolk'lt i'tt * JwttcawUi ta*tr rlaimo. and. by U"IMil?t Of l'> I I fh?at appallato trttraaal?nam >f. ?h? itpr?m- IKtrt ?* ( it Cnllod Htlc II traa for ran t a? an amimmt for W'lf'trawtnr tf . i 'lorttf of Onturrnai, axon n/|rtillln? II.? onatowco of o-K-hl m^or.lfi lUal tiari ' ' a M J tu<4? r*| oo, where it could be profitably employed, and w herever it oo-ld be bo employed, an in New Mexico, including Ariio na, it would be sulttcieutty protecU?1 by local legtslaUoo. The rfnult baa ehowu that ala\ ery now prevails almost exactly where it would luive been established if tlie MisBou/1 compromise line bad never beoo repealed, but hail been, as the South demanded from 1H40 until 1H50, oxtende t to the IV-ific ocean, that |<orti<ui of the Territory of New Mexico uorth of 30 dog 30 mm on equivalent for the and regions of CaLi'oruia south of tlio same line. I'raot.cally, therefore, the whole dispute has been settled , so that wheu Senator Ilrown, of Mississippi, demand ed, at the s- seion of Congress just concluded, that the laws of Kansas prohibiting alsveij should bo sonallod, his demand was only seconded by Senator Johnson, or Ar Wannas, end Senator Maliory. of Florida; and upon tne other hand, when the black republicans proposed a bill for abrogating the laws of New Mexico in favor of slavery, all the democratic representatives in Congreu, South and North, as well as ail the Southern opposition uiviuwric^icou iu rwiBiiOg u. ibu tocv l* ftuvoriuua, also, that by tha asaiatsnoc of Mr. Thayer, of Massar.huso'is ttud others of his party in tha House, the democrats and Southern oppoatttMtalawvrw enabled to defeat a num ber of Territorial bills oontaiwing the Wilmot proviso. It was evident, therefore, when our National Convention reassembled at Baltimore on the 18th of June, that the wisdom of the demoeratic party, in adhering to the doctrine or " non-intervention" through overy trial and roverse, would soon be rewarded by a triumph no leas signal than that which attended our oppoeition to Ri auk of the I'nlted States and our devotion to the principles of the independent Treasury act. If, In the estimation of all, except throe supporters of the Senatorial caucus resolutions, so called, declaring that Congress ought to intervene for the protection of slave property in the Territories ' when necessary," the express abolition of slavery in Kansas by Territorial act did not constitute a cose of necessity for such intervou lion, 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 dual judgment of the Supreme Court of the lTnitod States. Nor can It be denied that Cocgress may, in certain extreme case* beyond the power of redress by Judicial interposition, rc voice or amend a charter of Territorial organization for what useful purpose, then, was the ngitation of so dange rous a question renewed by President Buchanan in his last annual mef?uge, or inflamed by tbe resolution* of a Senatorial caueus, and dually thrust upou the Democratic National Convention at Charleston' IXCTXKH FOK ALTKKIXli THK CIWCIWWATI KI.ATVORW. the Supreme Court of tlin United States, In the rase of Ilrert S oil, lead to Hie uonelnsion that a Territorial I/Cgwlaturc has no more authority over the subject of slavery than Congress, and that Congress, equally with the Territorial ljcgtsUlure*, Is under obligation to protect as well the ixissession aa the title of slave projierty in the Territories. We do not now Intend to debate this assertion one way or another. Il Is admitt-d, universally, that no such question was presented by the record of Dred Aiott's ease, nor argued by counsel at the bar: and whatever the oon elusion at which any democrat might arrive, upon reading the opinions delivered by the .everal lodges, that conclusion cannot bo so clear of doubt au to warrant him in censuring those1 who, with an equal desire to ascertain the truth, have attained another conclusion. We must all agree that If the Supreme Court did uol intend to decide that question (as many believej, It would bean act of bao faith, in violation of the very terms of the Kansas Nebraska bill, to commit the democratic party, as a national organization, to cither side; whereas, u the court did so intend, nothing is more certain than ILat whenever the question shall distinctly arise, and be fairly argued, the court will express Its determination in language so plain as to command universal acquiescence. The judgment of the Supreme Court in irred Sootl's caso has been carried Into full execution, and whatever judgment it may hereafter pronounce, in a case depending on the validity or invalidity of Territorial enactments,must be and will bo executed w ith equal alacrity and conftdoncc. But, evidently .until some Terrilorial Legislature shall, by its enactments, have impaired the right of property In sla\ es, there ran be no use In agitating such questions; and if, as the authois of the Senatorial caucus resolutuus have declared by their votes, the case of Kansas he not a proper case lor Congressional intervention, it is difficult to imagine any other In which a necessity for such intorvcn tion will arise, ' Il Is said, however, that the dem?ratlc party thus oc| cuples an equivocal i<oaitii n, and that the Ciu nnnati plat form Is rendered susceptible of two lutcrpretatious. This pretext U merely plausible. The platform has no double meaning, and but cm- sensible interpretation. It declares against Congre-?;otial Intervention plainly, openly and uoequtrocaldy ; but refers the quewtion wliat power?If any a Territorial I jurtalature can eserrlmi for this nrnliibilion or the maintenance of Slavery, u a Territorial iustilutlou, to tbo adjudication or the Supremo Court of the United Stales. IS'iuocrats may diiTer as to what the court should or will decide; but tliey have stipulated, whatever the decision may be, to carry that decision into effect It baa been argued, also, ictstnncb as one duty of govornmo.t is the protection el properly^n return for the allegiance of its subjects, that the federal government cannot abdicate authority with reaper t to the Territories, hut should constantly exerriae a power of Immediate legislation for the protection of property as well as persona within them. This proposition, also, is merely plausible. It ignores the fact that Congress must bare, and has always, exorcised a chutes of InxtriitneaUlHice. It ignores the fact, also, I hat the duties of government have been divided under our American system Into those ot federal and those of State, Territorial, and even ol county, parish and municipal character. All those taken together oonatitiite the govern mrnt of which, and of which only, the proposition can truly be predicated, and unless we adopt the maxims ot the old federal party which our lather* repud atod lu 1TP1, 17W and ltKKl, we must deny that the govern men i of the United bines can afford any protection, except iu a federal capacity, to property of any drscription; all othor duties of protection having been wisely OonOded to Stale or Terrrllorial, and, in some cases, to merely municipal authorities. It la true, undoubtedly, that all forms of property rccogni'*d bf the laws of the respective Wall s coBi|swiiic our confederation, are en itled to equal regard by their common federal agent; but to affirm that it shall, under the pretence of protecting a right of property, usurp any power not clearly delegated by the ."Hates, lu the tenia of their com|>art with each |other U to allirtn a doctrine fraught with the most fatal oonsoqwnaoev. The <|uestion is not whether properly iu slavea. or any other form of properly, shall be protected in the Hates or iu llic | Territories, or e'lsrwhere; the g?Mw i- by which of the j several divisioua of government with ua, aud to what extent by each, this |<rotectioo shall be afforded It la a ' controversy, iMdMS, invohrtog the w'xde ground of difI ference b< tween the deans ratie party and the variras I writes by which, in the history of our country the demo crattc |wrty has been opposed. The H*st inclination of every drawers! should be to resist, as faros be can law fully, the exerelas of any power by the federal government. within lbs Wales, within the Territories, or nnv , _ ,.i ? ... < ....i. power by tbeaereral it.ilc* can he proven frt?m tbr Unfmurc or nooeeaary Import o( Ih - constitution ot the nitcd State*. We hare thua enrteamr.-d to bow you. fallow cittreiui, that the coo<tnet of tho <1 nocr.itio party, with reftrw* e to the subject of alaiery in iho Territories, b?H been dirtinguitbrd for moderation. tor wiae ki,<t wholeeome rtaleemivnaliip, for regard to the limited nature of the federal givornmeul to the rnnrrM righta of the State* and the |>e?'p|e, to the peace, the well are, the routinnai preaermt ion of llial l mot. baa ma.1- u- a miracle among the uatiaae. maatwrna itMmmof. When onr National Convention aeeembled in the city of ttiarhMon, on tbe JCM of April, >t exhibited a condition of alTaira unlike lliat of any other |? IMtcnl c invention ft tbia rear. Krrrjr State ot tbe I'nioii wan lolly repreei-nled. What American edixcn, wlietber of Southern or Northern birth, from the Atlanta- or the Pariflo rami? from tbe inland araa wblcli border upon Canada, from tbe v alley of the Imp trial Mi-?i?*ippi, from tbe State looking out upon the llulf <4 Mexico?del not rejoice on beholding wliat seemed to be. In rery truth, a council of the wh republic? W'br thai council tailed id Ha purpuee. wherefore H waa dleirarted, by whom and in what manner, we must now proreed to relate. The Iirmocr*th- Convention of Alalmmi a-aembl-d at Maelgomuy tn January, 1M0, to appoint d legatee turn that State t? the Charleston Omrentton II cboee to declare the opinion eotertaioe 1 by a majority of Ha membera, that uo Territorial l/-g1*lature had iny right to prohibit ?h<- tnatllaitton af slavery, ami thai the ronatitai lion of tbo laita-d Plato* ?a? uo tor tBimaslialo tlam to inalDlaia ami prolrct that iii-tilu'i xi rrorywhrrv, ' m tbo Platca, in tha-Termm-* , noil id tin-wilatomo" la which territorial r'rrratnrata arc aa yrt aaotyanlaoU. To rial, a Jr? larattni of opinion by tlio Slate of Altbunt. Ihrn could bo an r>?auo*bk- c round of obj?clma upou iho part of olhrr Malm, rarh of tuoin l>?ii.< at liberty to Camror or to itiaaoel Bt.l Alabama did not panto brro, be laatruclaal ba r ata-logalaw to pra -out Ibo* i-ami u lama la iho Onaroali o at Charl? t<-a; ami la ckm tho opnma NBN waa not MhfMf kl ibal . ifM) .1 . I? r it< icgala * arrrr imno <1 *t< Iv to wnfidraw An I, aa 11 cnaai-toaia 01 iho aolacoiiirto at'Haatomaurnod by au< h in atrurttam* toward the atoniak ralK party at larfa-, Ibr M-nl gnmary t'ouTontlou api??mla-4 a ram<n.uea< ii,*mi ?'i?in ibonM dornlvr Iho doty, a? -anaa o tha< A la bam t dole* Ua-s baat wilhalrnwa Train tlaal'oaiT salaam al Charleston, ail Mit ing a Plate ConTinn. to dax-idi* ult r 1 * moaawros. Wa- doairr b- apeak a lib ontaro r? apel nf M?.? St aloof Ala bama.and a ito-ntapt-run...m.T bar riflil at a ty tUn- to a.inpt anrh rraomtloir* a* to her aa-rmod hoot, w? aro cm atrainrd to aay that Iho altildalo ? htavh aha* loum d. with n card V Iho dotio? rao nf other Slat, r, htm a vlv iMiamaaftho u?agr* and principle* upon which only a Miami.' organitataim aaf our 'irn*-r?tie parir can ae mantancd ll rarh of the Stale* had ft4la>we.l lor ft ampla --auid ?ach of lh?an wiv-tor poor of Alabama?thr I National caaaald naat have pran eotod 000 atop, Ibrrr would hairlwn no room Inr nor. f.>r Inter .-hang.- <4 opinion or miluaniMurcoon uUitMi. barm >o>. tbd ur-it?-.l fti?n. Afi?r the (>>arb--ion O'l.riHili Mi had ppraeribod lh<ruiat of ilr pmco-iing au.1 t "riA- d lb- ? ?.-4 Mult of all iU <1i>r?lr> m lhr ( ml , it a (fanni-d r tor of imf I mm >m h stal" to report ptalfurm ul printi plea Thai c.tnmitlrr. after k<r( u4 tedion ? ?|.?mt inarir lhrr? report*. nor by Ibr rn-mhrr* from r\mln n Malar, oar by tbr m -aibera irrm Ai.e.o t*tnt<w, oar by mr Ilyllrr from tlir HUImiOIi <4 rbuoril- 1VDiil(m^?nir) irynfl atria aahrtauuil .iflrord.n.Ht wttb the mstr .nnnr of to h itrlr rabo. the orenarf rnnalrMat of an aldil.oa to lb- l'in< l imit | i*U.?rni. di< iriot Uuai ibr r*nntrail.- party wool I ainlo b) ahalr.r dwiawmt hadbr.a, or mijlt thrrrvi?r or rood. by tin- Sopreaie Cbort of tbr t'nitirl *il * ?h- ihlrl war Hi - Cki ninati pUiform any Imparta-il a lib lion A ft-r a full aod narneoi debate, It* \?me t\ M -it tbr Convention Wat not aallrfte.1 arltb any of tiro rr pnit*. and nrrordtnfly a motion MM mot* MM carried to rarmrmit all of them ?llahtma, at arr.l t? Mr rrtt of i lb. Metre which recede I Irvrn ilir C.?ur. nl,.ni, votinf for tfcio reeoaiinttairot On ttie raaie day (April JA) thr com Milter a? ..n re portrd, and aft.0 tbr reportr wrre tbrrr la bMbbrr. ibr ih.rd, by Wr Hutler, of Mttraehatctir b?iaf Me rantr wfi.vb hr had pr*Tloa?l? MbtniUed. rhr aeenad report 1 id tbr majority coar>b*d of Ibr*. tbmr rrtonitl hi _ ttrai-Thai Ibr feeemaent Hf a Terrti e* iwrarlml br aa I irfrf I N pro?t? n? I ami llf rtf; and. daring nr IrrtMrnrr a I'. eta one Of the ./abed Ami luee at e^nel ruhl lo traur with inrir propep> In ibe T> rronrj o'lbml if ir rtabt* ruber of para w or a-rperir. h?lnf deoiroyed or "Apaired by l'.*i*f.?aa>oal or Trrri Htal |ertai?:|.?< ) Aro od -TKal H la Ibr titty rf l>" federal fmerH?o'eV la aH lit, to pruert when ?nrra?.?r> Ibr rtfaw .4 pr~ 1 I aon* and prr(art. In ih? T* in ? tu' ' e?p .fr r rt , g??aJl ..!* aal ? > ? 1,. (iMlMa ITEW YORK HERALD. TI Third -Thai when the aetueratn a lecHtory, hubcuilt Quale populaUoe, form a State Cooveutlon, the rtjchi of aove rel<r?ii> eommetirea. and being coneumraated b? adm<aalon tnto the I'ntaii. they stand on an equal fouling with the people of her State* and the Stair tbua ixganued ought to be admitted Into the federal tTutno wbetbei tu couatltuaoa prohibits or rs cognise* Lb* Institution of slavery. Nothing could be more vague and unsatisfactory than three resolutions they deal In '-truisms" of the tamest HguiUcaju r, or rather, as the controversy then ctood, of no significance at all It would have been a sufficient reason for their rejection (If no other resolution* had ever been presented) that these magnified a thousand fold the alleged (hulls of lbs Cincinnati platform. The second renort from the minority of I ha committee, presented by Mr. Hamuel, of Iowa, consisted ot the Clc ciunatl platform with this addition ? Inasmuch as differences of opinion eilst In the democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial 1 -cgMaturo, and as to the poerra and dulire ot Conrresa, ua iter the cuoolitutloo of the United Htatee, oyer the inituuuou ol slavery within the Territories, Resolved. That the democratic party will abide bv the decision of the Supreme Court of the Untied States on these questions ot constitutional law. No further amendments or resolutions being admin ible by parliamentary rule, the Convention proceeded to a vote; first rejecting the report of Mr. Butler, and then substituting the report of Mr Samuel for that of the ma jority. Tito question recurring upon the adoption of Mr. Samuel's resolution, a delegate from North Carolina (Mr. Brown) obtained the leave, by unanlmouaconsent, to address tlio Convention, and thereupon expostulated against the resolution (as it then stood) in very earnest terms. It was immediately rejected by s vote of 288 to SI; the States of Alabama. Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas. Georgia, and Florida declining to rote on either tide With a view to the araeudment of that resolution so as to remove the ohj. elion thus suggested, a moliou for reounsideration was entered. Such amendment could ooly be accomplished by rejecting the resolution, and then recou sidering that vote; the previous question having been seconded and sustained by the Convention before th { delegate from North Carolina bad spoken. l'endine tins motion for reconsideration, before any vote upon it, and, consequently, before any amendment or Mr. Samuel's resolution coull bo proposed, tho Alabama delegation withdrew from the Convention, followed by teu of the delegalea from I-ouislanu, thus leaving thai State without a vote, the entire delegations Irom Mississippi, Texaa, and Florida, and the larger part of the delegations front South Q'rolina, Georgia, and Arkanaaa. These delegations with drew in the m?et formal manner; not contenting themaeivea with speeches on the subject, but deliver log written protests to be entered at Urge upon the Journal of the Convention. EXCISES KIR THE KCKXrtHM AT (SUXLUgOX. Various excuses have been assigned for tbU extraordinary conduct, but none < f them, iu our judgment, will b? ?r examination. It has been said, for i us lance, Uo- Convention adopted an unfair rule of voting, or one which enabled a mil only of tho delegates to control the m ajority. Here is the rule In so many words:? That in any Stole wh'eh h.t* not provided or directed, by Its n.ite t'onreiiiinn. how its vote ina) be given, the Convention wlii reuoguus the right of each delegate to cast hut Individual VOIC. This rule was adopted on Tuesday. April 34, by a vote of 394 agaiust iiO" delegates, which sutUciontly demon strutcs it.- fairness, if any demonstration were requisite. It acknowledge- the right of every State to bind her delegates, but secures to each delegate his own vote, as against any combiuatiou of his colleagues, where the State has not chosen thus to subordinate him. The rule was applied, at Charleston. In the decision of all questions; and u<> couipUint was then made of it (in their protect* or tlu-ir speeches) |by the delegations which withdrew. The first eompluint, so far as we can aarertain, wa- in the addross published by eighteen numbers of Congress, after the Convention had adjourned from Charleston to Baltimore. The rule operated at hardly upon the one side as u|>on the other; witness the fact that delegates from Alabama and Iouisiana were cotn|>eIled to withdraw from the Convention by the aid of their colleagues, against their own will, and that ten delegates from Georgia, who remained in the Convention, were not allowed to vole (under General Cushing's decision) because a majority of the delegation bad withdrawn. Of what possible importance can the assertion be that a dilMWlit result, either in regard to the platform or the candidate*, would have attended a rule authorizing each di legate to control his own vote, without refneme to the instruction* of bis State? In New York, Alabama. Indiana ai.d Louisiana, for example, the oonvrntion which instructed the delegates was the convention which appointed them; and but tliat all these delegates were understood to accept their appointment*, severally, with an obligation to obey the inatructinns, it is very certain the Convention would, in each cu--<>, have made other appointment*. And, after all, how much reliance can be placed in assertions or calculations a* to what any delegate would have done, at Charleston, in dilterenl circumstances. AU such assertions or calculations are based on rumors, surmises, irformatiou at second hand, or assuraaceo privately signified. We could, by the same style of argument, refute the whole of them; but we choose to deal with the subject an men, and not to amuse ourselves witb suppositions or l?in*ibililies The method of voting wan an affcir to be determined In th? Convention and it was determined at Charleston, iui we have shown, by a majority of almost two-thirds. Another complaint Is, that the report of the majority of the committee on resolutions was not adopted by the Cob ventioo?as being the voice of a majority of the States. Several answers suggest themselves at once. 1. Such was not the method of voting adopted by the convention, and never had beet the method In any previous convention. 2. If the rule had been that a majority of ths commutes should prescribe the platform, and notn majority of the ( .omolion, it in evident from their votes (afterward piven) ihat aeveral of the States would have chosen other representatives upon the committee. 3 The first majority repors, as we bare shown, was , not acceptable to the delegations which subsequently rei tired. Every one of tbem voted for its recommitment. 4. The second report of the cow mitlee never did, a* a whole, command the assent of a nuOorlty, the committee, j man fVem Missouri (Ceneral Clark) announcing that he ; would move, at the proper time, to strike out this sll important resolution ? Thai It i? I lie die* of Mm Mssl cnremmenl, In all Its <' )>*i tmenia, to prole,? bcu nei-eaaary, tin- ngbu of persons sod | npt-ri in ihe T' i rlioriaa, and wherrrei else lla couatl imuoiimI auilevilT riteii-la It required the committeeman from Missouri to consttMl I lie majority (seventeen) of which we hare beard so much. Without farther argument, therefore, this pretext disappears. It lias been said. Anally, that the States which favored the no nd majority plat.'orm were democratic States, and that all the others were hopeless, or, at least, unreliable. We could, if It were accessary, prove this to be untrue, but i-irb if it were In*-, in the largest oen*e, what Mly to be Kovcrued by such considerations. Those seventeen si iics lia.1 tn,t s minority of all the electoral vote", and r >ul?l accoapliali nothing without mwtaUnce. No wwe I '-uoia], ii|uu the fTP of ua engagement, would ruhatraet liotn the wrakt'Pt column of hut array in order to reinforce the strongest, h<> would, on the contrary , lake mean* to alrei.gthru the treble, even at tha expense of the tirtn. Dill, in a higher arose. and n|*>ii Uir nobl I consl deration of 1< .rw-craltc |*?ltey, Mich invidious d tuicliou lie I . -hi i i' .ght I b- .liM out aged Our party lias ever n-mm- nded itself a. do to the North ud to ilia -Smth. as a party in which all tti- State*- will Ond Iher In brer la equally proterU-d and their honor equally observed an t whenever we abandon that aafe ground, we f.tleily our ancient ami |> profra-ion, and dej.ra.te tier National Con volition to the level of tha Convention at Chicago. I vory true dome rat belierra hat Mu.-otarhuartUi, a* well aa South, won. 1 entier nob ret dou-loprmenl. aa a State, under t!ie in Turner of drmoeritlic policy, and. therrfore, in all naI no i mi v it. i -. Ho deriirvi hi , of Mar a biisetls -fee Me and even insigr. ticant aa oUiera esteemed tha*?have been tn at< d aa brethren and at equals. By Beans of eu? li a rule I'olk. and (aaa, and I'D rre, and Buchanan, were nominated for the Presidency, and three of them rir- led. What nr -d of any other rule at Charlr-toii* What, assuredly, but the prtnewer, for the flr?t time In our history, of an Intibae, fanatical and miarh-.oui pirli i-f sectionalism on the paitof the delegate- who secededf U Uie rule for winch tlx** delegate* contend had pro 1 Tailed heretofore, acme uf car national coot eution* ? >uld I are bWB <ii 1; conalituted. Thai of 1MI ? "lid have eonaiMed only o' delegate* from Alabama, Arh^iaaa, 1 Hue <n, Mi eoyri, New (lamp-hire, South Carol!^ <od Virginia, that uf IMduf delegate* from Georgia, lo ' tan. 1 <0' tana, Maine, Mirhigau. Miaei**ippl. New York and Peuii?yIvani*. in addition. that of IMS of delegate* irom Alabama. Arkanaax. Ulinota, Indiaiia, Iowa, Maine. Mh-ftdC<ui. MiaeuM.pgu. Miaaouri. New llampahtre, <Nlio. Scitih Carolina, Term. Virginia and Wiaeonitn. wh le that of 1 MAC would have ra, hided Ibe Stales of Teotea*e* aad Kentucky. wInch voted lor Mr llocbauan, but In . i led i Maine. New Hampalure, Ithode lalanil, Oonnee:irut, Now York. Marvlaod. iHiio, Mtcbgaa, Iowa and Wieouoaln, which voted against h ni It will acanely tc argued that delegate* oactl to be ad nttM tnta a hiimiI rowvwUan and Uteri I t the right uf voting la accordance with their own r<nrlrtion?, Tbt objection amoanta lo tHitbing, therefore, utinm to tbo I'n'iam lmeuirnt, Irota tune to tune, of aticU uf the Slaton a< for any ream n per uliar, local or temporary, vote againM i our l'r.-?i?leulial notnmoeo How would tncli t ru ? opfo I i ate four yearn hence' The b< act of the drmor.rary ia In it* nalionnl rhar liter I and rgmiwthie*. therefore,although our democratic breth rea of Mama> hu?< tu^Uave not achlered a vtoucy ui any , l'rratdanlml ebetMwi a nee 1*30, wo do not deeiine them, 1 bat gWutli ailmit them, on tenna ol equality,jo oar national i on veil lion*The truth l?, that Ibe geoedem at < barlwtou w-ert a-limbed by other motirru then a aincere regnal for tho treliare of the democratic party, or attachment lo democratic i.aagia and prtociple*. Tbe> were determined lo ( rule tie |wrly, or olaa to rum M No potiitoa orgaaitt I lion can rxlat ujam avrk teraar berauM le- be MM than a man who could tobmil lo tbein Wa haw aufll <'molly guarded the right" ut luiore itloa berrlotoee by roqulrlng rarli ofour nomiaeea lo receive two titrd" of all theelectocal rotea givea iia National (Join mtem, hot wbeoeier we a< knowledge that one flflh of lee . ol^ate* may (a.? at Charteaton) den and an addllioo < vur plat form. aad, upas Ibo rrfuoai af aucn 'lriu?u<l. m?jr riflMfully * <?!? , w rondo e ,| f..f toir p>rtjr to r sldt id) lon]r> IftMMo do? irr blmaoif iu hi* regard b' warn her* M llio whwlo cunU?<v*r? at HuHn f* dread to a pit la. daft nil*, and iittnroMaWa lw? *??t o?rr*a*r? at ranaueiro* air** m* ?*. MnM. Iin.liif ita?lf Ihua auddenle dopri of tli?a i.a?l ?ad iM>>iiDi' of I bo it*nw?rr?tK- jmrtr in arght buieD, thof'on ifDtK'D abaitUoood all atioinpu '< nt-diljr w on.arge tba CiDrtnnali plat form and procoadid In the 001 t?i ?>i of ODiidNlatrn. Rut in ord" that no reaaooaho objactiau ahould bo alloj^d to tUo\? titr of it* nomin?tton>, tb< ( n\ontMB altered Ibo ru.? . < a. I" mor convention*, ait rerju rad 1 nof moor.f two third* of Iho rlarw *1 role * ten. but I fnro Ittloda nf all Ma atartaoal ' Mo* i Ktttf * aa b*. U on* jod, and iu the etHir*o .f tho*o I ballot* r?/ *1. !./ * ma^ofit; of tb* entire ( nrenOOn At r* ik-Ho* of Oot-ernar Wlekl.te ? t,.da I aa. t-io r. , *m ad laaeKunn >v .lop 0.1 uuminnif ia |?n I af tb*? prm-ae* A? * fn?n. I at iW eaton ? Ro- iod Tu* u a M ?< ta i'o arrtk iba tr i? lerpretaI It ? <>f die Oori-aiU I latf em Ih rt, di-o* the ? irnre of Torr?ort?. *n>i r rmenu tbo meaanreaf renrf. wn epdfrrt Pit. b* imn**e4 b 11k fetor at *oi**tttim on ?i?e p..*en M I#|W> -aroror Ibo ?>ib;oo of 4 riartuo ret* Ian* *.? tho >?m? b*? era no *n*l Vventter be -i*H? to la.-m.rn: > v.-,* fn.r-e.-oe t o of bo t nfoH Rtue* ikon ,5 bo i**r oo o4 be all * *1 ei -eo. m' on' -eni rob p- me'-ita* Btl udcJ.y b/ t f . "Uwjtuc'.tavtbf uitv IURSDAY, JULY 19, I860 i-dicah * Stephen A DougUa as thsir choice for ths j I <?ideotlai office. The enemies of that distinguished statesman hare asset led many limes that his trends were disposed to force him upoo the National Convention. The falsity o( this will appear from the fact that his frienda could have nominated him at Charles ton, after the secession. in accordance w ith the ancient rule demanding two thirds of the votes given; whereas they altered that rule tmtae dlately, and required two thirda of all the electoral votes, or nearly four tilths of the votee which remained AD/Ol'KNMXJfT TO RAI TIM OR!. It last, unable to dlaoharge satiafactor:!y the trust con tded to u by the democratic party of the United States, I in consequence of the secession to which we hare re, it rred, the Convention adjourned fro*a the 8d of May to I tbc 18th or June, and from the city of Charleston to the 1 city of Baltimore, calling upoa the democracy of the sere rsl States, whose delegates hadj^ttred, to all the vooonciee caused by such retirement. The resolatioo was proposed by Mr. Pause LI, chairman at the Virginia delegation, end unanimously adopted, in those words Resolved, That when this ConveoMcn adjourns today tt ad lourn lo rfaeaem)>> at Baltimore Md.,oa Hood ay, the likh dav of June, end that It be respectfully recommeoded to the demm-mio part)' of the several States to make provision for iupplylng all vacancies In their respective delegations to this Convention when it shall veassemlnr.e It Is Impossible to mlseonstrue this resolution. There woe no vacancy whatsoever in the Convention, except euch as had been caused by the secern loo of certain delegates; and unless the States of Alabama. Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia and Arkansas ware thereby invited to elect new delegates, the State of Virginia, and all other States which remained in the Convention at Char etion. deliberately stultified them selves * That the seals of the seceders were understood to be vacant at Charleston appears also from the decision of General Cushlng, sustained on appeal, that the minority of the Georgia delegation couB not rote in the Conveui tioo after the majority had seceded. That the seceders , intended to resign all claims of membership is evident from their speeches and protests at the time of secession. No language could have been employed to exprew more pln.nly the determination of those delegates to retire from the Convention at once and forever. cosvkitiom or tux sbtkdkks at caAXUwrost. Having thus separated tnems?lveg from the democratic party at Charleston, the seceders forthwith organised a ariv nf ttu*tr nun usupmhlinc in rccular convention at St. Andrew's Hall on the 30th of April, election perms nent officers, adopting rules and appointing a Committee, upon Organization and a Committee upon Resolutions. The latter committee reported, on the 2d of May. certain resolutions (the second majority report) which had been rejected by the Democratic Convention; pending which, as their journal informs ua, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama me red that the report be amended M as to atrtVe out the word* "of the United States'" after the word* "democracy," and tnaer. "consUtutioial' before the name word as oitra as It occurs la the report. Can there be any doubt as to the temper of such proceedings' Mr. Yancey desired to adopt even n new naute as well at k separate organization; and it is notorious tuat he was the master spirit of the whole secession movement. Others, it would seem, were not quite so bold; and, therefore, after aome debate, his amendment was withdrawn. Several days of hesitation, doubt, and controversy among themselves ensued ; but at length ascertaining that the Iiemocratlc Convention had adjourned to meet at Baltimore, on the 18th of June, the seceders were compelled to adopt some definite course. Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, then proposed this resolution, and it was adopted: Resolved, That the Democratic party of the United States who are opposed to the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, and in faTor of the platform of prineiplr* recommended by a major! ty of the St alee In the Charleston Convention and nnaaimouaiy adopted by the delegate* of eight withdrawing Stales. be Invited to aend delegate* to a convention to be held In Rtchiuood, Vtr gtiiia. on the 2>1 Monday of June; and, in order to secure eon cert of action. that the butis of representation be the nunc aa that upon ..hlch the Stale a have been represented In the Charleston Convention. Another quotation from their journal is somewhat sig nificiuit ;? On motion of Mr. Barry, or Mississippi, the follvwing resolutiou was adopted ? Resolved, That the delegates from South Carolina be re queued to publish the proceeding* of this Coovenuon, nod to incorporaie thera in * pamphlet coUiuuit: su Buck ol tbr proceeding* of the Convention from which tin* Convention withdrew km expUtns the c.?.see ol our sep.u atk<u trout it. < >n motion it ? id Resolved. Tlu-t the South Carolina delegation lie appointed * roinmiuee loinuke arrangements for the Coaieu'.ioa to be held at Richmond We i?u*e here to wk, in >11 candor, how theee gentlemen could any longer claim to be member* of the party whose Convention had adjourned to Baltimore, and, especially, to he members of that Convention Y uvwm&ket actio."* o? thv pkckpkks. The Richmond Convention proved a miserable failure. None of tbe Northern States, and no Southern States, except South Carolina,Florida, Mississippi,Tens, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia, ever appointed a delegate to attend it. The secede rs returned In their constituents from Charleston, and all of them distinctly surrender'<1, at home, their commission In the Convention which had adjourned to Baltimore. A brief recital of i what transpired in o*ob Futc becomes now essential. SOI TU PAROUS A. The delegates who represented this State la tbe Charleston Convention declined further service; whereupon a new delegation was appointed in State Convention, at Columbia, May 80, and accredited to Richmond only. The toremost of these new- dolcgaies, Hon. R. Barnwell Rhett. had beea Air many years a xealoua opponent of the democratic party, and, as appears by his letter of May 10,1H60, only attended the Richmond Convention in that character. One paragraph from the letter will be sufficient:? You say "Hsve we not heretofore opposed aa'.ional asrty I convention*, and i? not I he Re im*nd '.liven: ton a national i parti convention'" t A national part7 ronven lion ? the convention "i a nan- whi: h is Cased "r mikhui ?rtariplea, that H. principles rommun to all portion* of the nHed Mate- Tbe Richmond Con- rntioo is no'. *ueh a 1 contention It* dc tared p> in .r>>? ?i- let ui.imi,) t.?uol a stasia N ort Male has dared to a.ow them. I It U a actional eonveuOon, railed br one ?crttoii of 1 the Union to support ri(bt* and Interest* belonging to one section of tbe Union and acknowledged br bat nns *er tlon of the I'likm. It aris>'* out of the drhri- of the one great national party In tbe l aloc ?the democi atie party?and la intended to >- waterart It* poli< v. It Is true that alt those of ths democratic partv In the l ured Kwir*. who agree with the platform the el.'bl S'nuiern Suites Lu down a* their c er.ou of partv aOillatxKi. are Invited to attend the Richmond Conven i uon. i m* m. rrriaint.v, an DiijertKinaioe leaiure iu im im\ cotton; I.Ill R doer not idler Ma aitararler aa a Southern OooT*niMHi to support Southern right* and la*?raaW. The blank ' repuhll.ana invite all m th? United Mates who agree with I thera It, their nlioUuoo di-alans lo oin with ihmm Ibnri 'm I venakai at Oik-aco. Hnppoae d?l?-*v?? should so lalo that I IVwivrnlkio (aa lhev wtlli from ftmifhern stair* wnuld that dia rol>e h of lit aritlonal character? <" pumly n? Nor anil I ha i fart that from a few or man) Htatra in (he North, d'-legatea mat attend th< Rk-hmood tVjcveqUon, i hang* tto character aa a aeruon d Coin rntkm. Ai'tdhtr delegate. Hon Armistoad Curt, thus addressed I the Convention, by which lie aa* afpotetaA, at Columbia, i June 2 ? j Mr Writ hi. of Rpariansburg. mac and nvmiiuMed Hon. A. It'.rt hi a 1.1., tille Mr Hurt roar an<1 lieggrd to laform hta friend thai he traa I moal mln .am If hi? nnrninv.lua ?aa to be eon I afcli-red a i ojrrauiHi to tba ??i ruiion parte He ha<t not one I elemrii'. id I lie tivUona; democracy In htm I arai rained a nulltfter of Ihc atitcteat sect. I i.aa brought up : at the fret nt (iamaJkl. and would be rn-reant , not inly to frond, bip. hut to print iple, if I were to apt?t>tde, aid UnA m>aeli tn the rants of Ute national dr 1 mm ract 1 * 11 aa>, If vou will allow me onl) a few words, lor mure than auleeu year* I have enlertal.Vad an opinion ; w hich baa ncn r been rhanged It w a my misfortune, In Mil, I In differ with lrien,lv mhrn 1 lo\ d sadrnrlj aa a man lorge I near friends, and. from Tehf-ar). ItU. I hare never doubled. an help me t?od thai the Html hern Nt itrt would a. en have to { th *-an between slavery and disunion Mr. Burt received after tbta declaration all but one and on" etcn ntb of the votea cast, and ?m of course elected. Much are the avowed sentiment- of two gent! .nee with whom the neilirt from the naanocratic National Ooaventk.i. al Hull n.ire afterwards iialbvl at Kk-hrvwwid in af. I filming the oimii tlua of Mew- Breckinridge and line rtown*. The Stale Contention of Florida reappo nte-1 moat of the delegate* who bad teemed at (TwirUeton, hut accredited tbi ni to the Hi? htnood Onni ration only and yet tboae de ley-ate*. while Ihry did not even claim admlMioa Into the IVmorral.r National Convention at Baltimore, were admitted itilo, and conrtitut-la part of the meeting at the Maryland Institute, by whica Meoara Brc* kihridge and C*ne were nominated. wMn'im. The delegate* from thia State who teceded from the Cobvon lion at Cbarlraton were reappointed to the National Itemocratie Convention at Baltimore, aa well an appelated to the Convrotion at Ricbmwti I They were acknowledged by the former an regular delegatea, but refuted to lake their aeat*. rota. Th# Char teat on aecedera front Texat were reappointed to tbe National Convention at Baltimore, aa well ae ap pointed to the Convention at Richmond, by the State I?emocratk Committee, it virtue of a pow -r upecially eonlerred. Tbry alee ware acknowledged b> the former Convention aa regular delegate*, but ief\i**d to take their Mb. utMura Th- eeced r? from this Beat* avoided trial before a regular Conventtea of tbe democratic party, but called St be delegate* by whom they ' had been -n?delegate* whoae duty and Office had ex. i pi red? to r raw noble at Baton Bouge, and rep re wot thr cwwrrvy ia citTMmataorrr not ron tempi it r<1 at thr t imr of tbrtr appointment. A mrrr "rama" of thorn drtogatra did maarrmbl", without an'-hunty from thr pronto, and reappointed tin wrodrrn a-d-legates to the nommratK- National (Vwrmi ?>n .11 H-iltimora, nod aim apt<o|nlod th< ni as delegate* to Um Coo volition at Richmond. Meanwhile, la pnmnance <>r a call from wrenl demo, rrattr aswutlona In New tirlean*, aanrtimed lijr th" rrprr--uUtive o' I omo .ma in 111" No nil" 11 Commit if*, the detnnrrary of thr Slat" axtivitbled In outi rrntion at Doonldaoartlle. by delrgaler imtmlui-ly elioeon from ibi people. and repudiating th" ?< Uiifaithfnl. appointed a Dow delegation. arer- I ilel *o|r|y to thr (irtnorratir National Onaveaiioa at Baltimore ai tataa fo thi.* State the committee appointed at Montgomery, m .taniwrj . ItoO, for the pnrpoar of carrying into rrtni the a heme of acveaaioa thro meditated, and aftrrwarda atonmptiaiird at, awe-mbled a oonrraMoa to jnintusnce of thr original .leugn, or. a< thry declared , to consider what waa heat to hr done. Wb?rrtipoo thr drmra racy of Alabama. reneible that th? Montgomery (ooTrmtrm I tad abneert Ita trnat tn anmnung aa attitude of hostility toward thr do an* ratio party of othor St ilea, denounced that rom alitor aa an integral part of thr Mlirmt wt mronaiou nnn ni enmpuaiiru. ?nu wrp<i|?"n dt-rlinod to bo jnrornod by it* adrlro. (to tho amtrory, in accordance with the uaeg. In that Pulo, tl?a dcnvirmry of lb* wvwtl wmtlw wIM M anew other, by , county meeting*, to appoint delegate* to a democratic itate ccmeralloa, at Montgomery. to fill the Tanto in from Alabama In tbo National Onnreotioa. raneed by the ari rlon at Cbarlmt"0. Thia ronvmtmo of the demo eraor of Alabama woa regularly aarrmbted, and appointe-l a foil dflcgatloa, accredited to Baltimore only Tt>e other coormtion proceeded. nevertheb-ea, to ap point another delegation (including the moot prom nrnt eredern), accredited equally to Baltimora ant to MMM fb.relj thi? ?? tH> Interpretation of <hl? resolution l>y th? rwrnioi for ee find at Ma\.more lb*i Ibr inltmrtng rmntu ftna. *trb n-ae mired ret by Mr Cbnrrb, of How Tort, km adopted <n?mti'M ?lv Rr. roa. 1 ba' lb* ' adoatla of all pemora rlaintiag ?eata | laUiarrn rrm m elr t?o? at by tbr ar?-e??i a, ol delegare at Cfcartee on, or referred to ihr < enniier erhirb It hereby laatr 'ed. aa n ?e i mr" .?*> e I" ntnur tba aatia, ?-' rrpec ?, Uko -i *! IV iwrwra* eat bed to inch * da. I A MM AIM AM Two of the eight delegate* from th J State did not ser? e at Charkstoc, and no Stale Convention waa ^"-'r ward* a*acon bled. In each Co agree* tonal district, how | ever, two convention* bad been called, the deiega ? to which had been all appointed prior U the meeting o' the harlceton Convention, and, of course, without refe ence 10 it* action, to nominate candidate* for Congress. Th>*-e iwo convention* assumed the authority to appoint delegates to the Baltimore Conventlne. In the First Congressional district a mass meeting of the national d< m or racy was called, by advertising In the pa pers published In the district, and others out of It having circulation there, which was numerously attended, and which, with unusual unanimity, appointed four gvntle mm of character aad distinction to represent that dlstri :t in the Baltimore Convention. Three of them attendel, and were permitted by the Committee on Credentials to cast one vols. The Second Congressional district, having celled no meeting, the mum committee permitted the delegates appointed by the Congressional Conrention, together with the eeeeders and appointees of the First Congressional Convention, to oast two votes, tearing one vote to be cast by Messrs. Fourasy and Stirraan, whose right to east it was contested by neither party, they having never seceded. Mr. Stirmaa, however, declined to vote after the secession ot the majority of the Virginia and other South era delegations, which left but one nod n half votes cast by Arkansas for Mr. Douglas. It must be conceded that the reporttof the Onmmttlee upon Credentials was so liberal and eoacill story towards the aeceders and their friends as to be hardly just to the representatives of the national democracy from this Slate. II snail 11 In this State, after the Charhston secession, s regular State Convention was called at Milledgevilie, and all the delegates, as well those who had seceded as those whe had not, were rcappeinted as delegates from Georgia to the Democrat ie National Oosvenlion at Baltimore, and also appointed as delegatee to the Convention at Richmond. A large minority of this Convention protected against the act accrediting delegates to Richmond, declaring that an act of hostility toward the national organisation of the democratic party, an 1 refusing to engage in any such scheme. This minority withdraw 'rom the Convention, aud. uniting with the representatives of several counties who had refused to participate In it, organised a separate Convention, and appointed a full delegation accredited to Bulti more only."" Tli* National Convention at Baltimore, with extrava ganoe of liberality, rather than a scnae of Justice, ex cluiled the delegation thus accredited to Itself alone, and admitted the delegation accredited as well to Richmond. ACTIOS AT I IITII Hk It appears, from what we havo said, that all the dele gates to the Richmond Convention, except from the four States of South Carolina, Florida, Loui.-utna and Alabama, were actually admitted,as delegates, in the National Con ventlon at Haltiraore: that Convention, sacrificing the usages of the democratic parly, and even (aa we think) ita proper self reaped, for the sake of reunion, harmony, and ultimate succeM. South Carolina and Florida did not apply for admission; and. therefore. It cannot be said that any iojiislice was Indicted upon them. In the cases of iAmlslana and Alabama, the new delegations were admitted, and those who re presented the Charleston vocoders were rejected. The decision of these two cases, therefore, mutt constitute the sole pretext for the secession at Baltimore. We have related the facts of each rase, as understood by the majority of the Committee on Credentials, and by the majority of the Convention, and although confident in our opinion that the Convention erred 1:1 admitting a single delegate accredited to the rival Com ention at Richmond, we, nevertheless, submit to you. fellow citizens, whether a decision between two delegations from Louisiana and Alabama (even treating the decision as erroneous), constituted any sufficient excuse to those delegates from Virginia, Maryland. North Carolina. Kentucky, Tennes.-ee. California, Oregon and other States, who seceded, thereupon, at Baltimore. Waa it not a prclwxt iudustriously sought, and at the Instigation of men?Cabinet officers. Senators and representatives in Congress, placemen or contractors of Mr. Buchanan's choice?t<> whom the democracy of their own but tea bad not coottded the duty of selrcting our candidates for President and Vice Presidentr We can give to this whole aflair no other interpretation: and we denounce such meddleeomene.-s, therefore, as an attempt to usurp the control of the democratic party, and even to dictate its nominees, by those to whom the people never entrusted anv such taste. That any delegate should have been so far deceived aa to become an instrument of this conspiracy against popular rights, against democratic principle# and'policy and usages, we do exceedingly re gret; I lut the whole case Is now before you, and it is for the wisdom and virtue of the people, in every Mate, to redress an outrage so unparalleled. Sf cweuo* AT BAIT. HORJt. The aote pretext for this, we repeat, was the admission of certain delegate* from Ioutslana and Alabama, and the rejection of their adverse claimants. The Convention had decided similar controversies at Charleston with regard to the Slates of New York and Illinois, but no secession or even disturbance ensued. In the case or New York, the Louisiana delegatl a> voted unanimously upon one aide, and the Alabama delegation unanimously upon the other What if they had then parted company f It Is too ridicnlons?or, rather, would be ridiculous but for the gravity of its consequences?that delegates from Virginia, Maryland, Nerth Carolina, Keatucky, Tennessee, California and Oregon, who declined to aeoede from the Conveattoa at Charleston {notwithstanding the appeals then made to them), should have acceded at Baltimore, uponeo trifling a pretext. There must bea cause behind all this, and that cause, frankly, was a determination to set aside the usages, and policy, and principles of the democratic party, fbr the purunee of alienat Ing the democracy of the South Iron the democracy of the North, and thus tubing the Orst. fatal and irrevocable stride toward disunion of the State*. ^omxATSo* or oorot i < After all secessions. as well at- the refuse! of certain delegates from Georgia and Arkansas, together with the entire delegation* from loves end Miwawippl, to occupy Uielr sea s. our National Convention at Haittmorc yet retained 424 delegates, or 212 electoral rote*, being ten more than two thirds of the electoral rotes of the a hole Union. But pome of these delegates (as in the case of Georgia) refrained from voting, the tns only of the delegation bavin? retire 1: others (as lu the case of Arkansas , allli ?ugh full delegations, and aulhori/od, incase of any secession, to cast the whole vote of their State, preferred only to cast that whieh would be a fair proportion between the necedrrs and themselves; and yet others (as la the esse of Delaware and por tions of the delegations trom Kentucky and It ism. or*, j declined to vote, but refused to secede This accounts for the fact that upon the second ballot, by States. Mr. Iwugla* received oniy 1*11,'votes, Mr Breckinridge re. reiving 10Mr. Guthrie 4 voter, the States of South Carolina (B1 and Hortda (3> having ai.tuorlzrl no delegatea to a . * Convention at Baltimore. Here is the ballot as recorded:? MrteHmUgt G>J\rU Mane ? ? 7 New ? ? 5 I YtTHMiBt . ? ? A MaeaachuartU ? ? 10 Rhode la.aj.i ? ? 4 GDnnccticnt v; ? S-j New York ? ? 55 New Jersey ? ? 1! -t l'fnii-y>T?ii.B 10 10 Mary land ? ? | , Virginia ? ? 8 North Caro.uia ? ? 1 Alabama ? ? f? j Louie iana.._ ? ? ti 1 Arkansas ? ? , Missouri ? ? 4 t I Teiiniasi t ? ? 3 Kentucky ? It, 8 ' Ohio ? ? K Indiana. ? ? 18 (lliootr ? ? 11 Michigan..... ? ? ? wisoomiu. ? ? 6 Iowa ? ? 4 Minnesota ? ? , 4 (?n motion of Mr CUrk, of Mlwoiirt, at the Instance of Mr llogt , of Virginia, the qu*ati?n waa then propounded from the Chair whether the nomination of Dorg'aa ebonld ' or ahould not be. without further ceremony, the unanimous act of the Convention and of all the delegrdea pre nrnt theChairman distinctly requesting that any dele, gate who objected (whether or not having Toted) ahould signify hia cieeent. Su delegate din* on ted. and thus, at IajiI HIM S(i-tihfin \ Uinvlkt nnunmiMtc'v rv.rrt niiiwl n * j Convention reprrteutlog more than Iwi third* of nil I be electoral votea a* Uip candidate of the democratic party for the Pnaidnncy of the I'm ted gute? Vm It irroffiilar tbu* to propose a candidate? If an, InrtfOaavii irregularly nominated at Riltiinore In IBM?which do man crer pretended?for the mim methoil war adopted in blf> can Pubarqurnlly, Cor Kllrpntrtrk, of Alabama, baring do clinrd the nomination for vice Prealdeot, the Prmoerati< National Committee (lb pursuance of authority oomerred npoti it) tendered that position to aa eminent ana ot Wuor gla, llrrarhel V. Johaana, who anreut<?l It without bealta tl<>n. and whom the democracy of the Union will support with coaftdence, and pride and pleaeure unman or rwr mwcotmh at nainaoaa It did not Haa to the dignity of a convention. it wan a tnrec assemblage of odd# and end#, without formal pro < iamMinn, w ithout authority from any Plate, In open ?on irarrntlon of dcmorratlc policy and dcnerratic usage* Ttia aeceder* would uot risk llie ex per inn n . of proi edlog to, altle igb Cue delegation from "tooth ItWolina w&a Iberr waiting for lli m. wad adjourning the "OMwaattM" from day to Uav Ibr tRctr in?adatl n fl?ey inrented the Ihrec, therefore, ef an Impr mptu gathering at the Mart land Institute In Riltlm >rr. aad harlrf cnopumniatoJ their nl.iw, by th< i'-ti of a Invaninfk-M platform. and Utr nomination of John C. Itrock mridfe and Joaaph I aoa, tbr aooador* from Aiaiia(ua, I/>ui-iar.a. Mtanl-olpni, Trtaa, ArVan?in,flr< rya and Florida proreode I t< !' hm ad, and lli?r<v "bv MtH Hoe," united with Smith Carolina In ratifying wha they had arrompliahnd at Baltimore *nn \ouihattt- nwumm **t? i.?!* . In bla aprooh at Waabinctnn sity accepting thia Irrernlar nomination, Mr. llrcoklnrldje penn.tud bi<a*olf to nay that the roeetinr at the Maryland Inatiiuto wan a mnetlnf of Hie "nattonai deroocrary " in duo li-fm, and ! aa nurh, entitled to hi* allegiance | I'rUoa ?itlRoam ?Hrco m their own liat w ail the doiegalea who |Mtrticipato I In Uiat aff.or ? The Chairman of the Comm.ttee no Credential*, importad tho ^following duly accredited member* m attend ; anew:? t irmaia. ?Charle* W, R't*aell, Arthur R Smith. John K. Kindrod. M. W. tiahor. lo r^o Ronki r. .lame* Bar b?w, John Axlilon, tawis r_ Hartrle. Win. I*. Thompson, Henry T Carnett, Wn A Bnrkner, John Blair Hope. O. R. Kunaten Walter P. leake, *?. P. Ceoil, Robert Crockett. John Braiinnp. H-nry Flt/hi.jrh, Robert A. Coybill, r. B. Jooce, K W., Walter Colts, Wm H. Clark, R Ii. Class Cewrptn?Henry R. Jarhsoo, I. T Irwin, Henry J. Ben nine. H4otnon Ooben, John W. H. luderwool, Ir-aerlrk H fvtest. T. Botlrr Kmr, Jnllen Hartrldfe, Horrh M. Moore. John A. Jone?, James M. Clark, Nelson Tift, T. J. MWiohoe, O. C. Olbnno, P Traccy. I, D. ?tr?li*okor, Th?r. W Hill. Wm. Phillips, Xim^ M RarnwrU. f. J Pain, Uewle Tutnlin, James Huye. Mark Jhnm.n, II B TUomar James Jaokann, James A. Hledye (Hbon, T Rogers, John A. Onhb. I>ari<t C Barrow. M C. Vsltrm ffm> l'orlr -Aoynstus Mr hell. ? Bartietl (Wffbrltia ? Austin 1. fmlth, t) P. Grri: >ry, John A. ftreihilhi*. Charlra I. ftpolt, prnty for t. W' fttrkt; K. F. lariAJoo, ptviy for L R BrmH jr.U. L Dudley, proi/ I for John Riint Ca'Uoun Bruham, proxy fur John 8. Dudley. . Mwy land.?%m. T. Hamilton. John Con tor, Levin Wotford. John R. Kmory, K I., h Hardaualie. Darnel Fielda, Bradley T Johnson, WiUrnm It Bowie, Garrille Bum lU/ vnnrylroma'W. M Retry, V. L. Bradford, Ceo. M. Henry, 1. C Evaas, Geo. H. Uu-tin, H. A. Guernaoy, HIauer, II H. Dent. A. J Clossbrenner, Arnold Hummer, H B r>warr, David Vuter. Iycuinana ?R. A. Hunter, Richard Taylor, E laMtra Job: Tarletou. F. H. Hatch, D. D. Wither, k C. Downa, J. G. Pratt, F- H. Knapp J. H. Now.B. Millikeu _ _ J/unnrijfti ?George A. Gordon, CharW* Clark, E. dale, W. 8. Barry, w. 8. Wilson, W. 8. Featberaton, H. O. Chambers, Joseph W. Matthews, C. G. Ar mis toad, B. Mathews, B V. Liddell, Joseph B. Davis, Wirt Adams, Alexander M. Clayton. Orel/on?Lansing Stout, J. F. Iamerlck, Isaac J. 8tarens. Justis Sleinberger, U. B. Crosbae, A. P. Deonisoa. Minnrtota?K M. Johnson JV'orVA Carolina.?Wtr\. landi?, W. W. Avery, lott W. Humphreys, John Walker, Samuel Hargrave, .lames Palton Samuel P. IiiU,T. J. Green, Columbus Mills, W, 8. Ashe, C. A. Foster, Bedford J. Brown, It R. Bridges, W A. Moore, W. 8. Steele. Honda.?.lames B. Owens, W. D. Barns, Joseph Joha Williams, a F. Ward law, Goo. W. Call, Chas. L. Dyke, N. naker. Tennrrter?Samuel Milligan, Wn. A. Quvles, J. D. 0. Atkins, W. L. UcIoUund, Alfred Robb, James D. Thomas, Daniel Itonelsoti, Thomas Mesiers, John D. Kiley.J. a ' 1 atnb, H. F. Cummins, R. Matthews, F. C. Dunningloa, ! J >hn McGavoch, H W. Wall, Andrew Ewlng, R. D. PosaU, 1 John K Howard, C. Vaugn. MantachtiHtU.?Caleb Costing, James L. Whitney, W. | C. N. Swift, P W. Leland, Alexander Lincoln, Bradford L. Wales. Isaac H. Wright, James Riley, Benjamin F. Hallstt, Gcoige B. Lortog, E. S. Williams, George Johnson, Benjamin F. Butler, Abijah W. Chapin, David W. Carpenter, , Reuben Noble. , Arkamat?J. r. JoLlsod, De Rtsig < arroll. Robert W. Johnson. T. C. Hind man, John A. Jordan, John J. Stirman, Josiah Gould, Van H. Manning, F. W. Headley. Kentucky?Ridiard M. J. Mason, Iafayette Green, Jak. G. Leach, John Ptahrnau, Colberd Cecil, James B Reck, 0. W. guarles, Robert Gale, Robert M. Kean, John S. Kenilnc k. Alabama ?I- P. Walker, A. B. Meek. H. D. Smith, W. I.. Yancey, F. 8. Lyon, W. M. Brooks, R. G. Scott, J. W. | Portts, N. H. R. I taw son. T. J. Burnett, Ell 8. Shorter, J. | C. a Mitchell. W. C. Penlck, A. 8. Van de Graff, L. M. , Stone, John Krwin, G. P. Johnson, F. G. Norman, John E. Moore, E. W. Kennedy, Robt. T. Scott. R Chapman. Wta1 field Musou, Alexander Snodgrass, J. T. Bradford, W. P. ' Browne, W. H. Forney, P. w. Broreman. Texas.?Guy M Bryan, H. R. Runnels, F. 8. Stockdale, ! F R. Lubbock, J. F Croaby. Tom P. Ochiltree. Minnuri.?C. C. Corwln, W. J. Mcllhiney. I The number of delegates reported to the Convention by . the Committee on Credentials was greatly disproportiooed to the vote for iu candidates, Messrs. Breckinridge and ; lane each received the following vote? , Vermont Mississippi T Massachusetts I Texas 4 : New York 2 Arkansas 4 ' Pennsylvania 4 Missouri 1 Muryland 414 Tennessee 0)4 1 Virginia IX1, Keutucky 4)4 ' North Carolina 8)4 Minnesota X | Georgia 10 California 4 Florida S Oregon 8 I Alabama 0 ? Louisiana 6 Total 104 It will be observed, from this vote, that thirteen States ' ?Maine, New Hampshire. Rhode Island. Connecticut. New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, 01)10, Indiana, Illinois. Michigan, Wisconsin, and low*?had not om delegate present. These States may be of no cows queuce in Mr. Breckinridge's estimation; but. so far ad nationality is concerned, the black republican Convention | at Chicago made a better exhibition. It will be observed, also, that Virginia cast bat eleven and a half votes out of fifteen Mr. Glaas, whose nam* appears among the delegates, although he retired from the Convention, did not, as bis recent addrem states, onita a ltli the secessionists. Georgia was represented by thirty delegates, although that State hat but ten votes; Callforma by a majority of proxies, and Maryland by a bars majority of th< delegation. Twelve individuals appear ta hare been present from Pennsylvania, but only four vota were cast, which shows that, In fdet, there wars but eight secede rs in that delegation. North Carolina and Ten lies Bee were represented by majorities of their respective delegations; but Kentucky, Mr. Breckinridge's own State, gave him only four and a hall' votes of the twelve te w hich that Sta e Is entitled in the National Oonventioa. F lorida was represented, and her three votes oast, by n delegation which was accredited only to the Secedera' Convention at Richmond and w hicb, by a letter addreeaed to the regular Convention at Baltimore, refused to ask admission, or to recognise that b <ty in aay way. Louisiana and Alabama SnSSl api>eared by di legations, which had bean refused. as wc haw already shown, admission to the National OoLvention of the democracy?the latter having twenty eight delegates to cast nine votes. Missouri, entitled'to nine vote*, was represented bv s ainirle vote. And vet * nomination, made by fragment! of drlagat.oiir from aotne Stale*, pretended delegations from OtMT Stat ?as Alabama, Florida and Louisiana?and 1*7 not a single den gate from thirteen States, is national. Than Gbl.tornia, with a ngjorlty of proiiec, Georgia. Missigsippi, Oregon and Tessa, entitled in all to twenty eight votes, are the only States which it can be alleged, with a shadow of evidence or truth, were in the Seoeders* Ooovcntlon wrh a full or an untainted delegation. The apparent vote by which Breckinridge and Lmm were nominated Is 106, from which, however, conceding that which we do not concede?that all tbe votes whioS they received were regular?must be deducted, for reasons which we shall give: two votes trom New York, one half of one vote lrom Vermont, one gild a hail votes from North Carolina, one and a half votes fross Arkansas, and one half of one vote trom Minnesota, In all six voles, which makes the vote in the Seoeders' Con nation ntnrty nine, or two Ice* than one-third of the whoia number In the National Convention. First, as to New York. Mr. Augustus Pchell and a Mr. Bnrtlett represented that State as seoeders, and cast tare votes Their right to apeak for New York, tbe actio* of the Htate Convention, by which the delegation to Chartsaton was commissioned, will deleimiue. Tbe following resolution was unanimously adopted by tbe Democrat!* State Convention>? Resolved. Thui the delegation to tbe Democratic National UoaveaUm, to be appointed u hereby tnatrucied to enter that l otivpuiion aa a uuu. a> d act and T<*e ?? a unit. In T-rimlaaiM with the will of a tV meaabeie ihar-of. a ma l. JJ**ai j of iu abtfiJall be appointed dtlrrnin by aay other oreaaumuon. and ahail act forthwith. U> ?LtZL au< b appoutUnnit. Ilia M-ai Miall >? retarded aa i araled. and the delegation aball proceed to fll! the luafl aa It la hrehbe empowered tnat.oply aL racaanra by oeath. a bee ace r^eae UcB or otatr* me. ' 1 Mi-sera. Schell and BarVctt ware ihiegatee only an lone an they acttal under thu fi r-going rr-olutloo, which lha t ot vent .on at Lharlcw on unarinaooaly recognised aa binding Whence, than, cam* their credential*? They merely representee their own individual opinions wka thi 7 euti red I ic feeders' halt. I ennor.l ?Mr ?teughton, who cart the half of one rote fro-a Vermont, i* ip the name category with "?Try akeh ami BurUeti. from New York, lli- state vnud aa a unit throughout ul Clmrl. i ti n *ud Raltimore, In acoordanrr with the darihion of the Slate Convention. Aortt Cafvlina. ? There ?it? but fifteen delegates rapresent uc this .--tatc, and j et the aeeeders foot op eight and a half Instead of Seven and a hail votes, which la all this delegation *ho. Id Uive cast Arkan:t* ? Ftur \otcs were counted from Arkansas, although one aiid <-ne hall vcHeg ??re truly and proper!/ repfr -< nl-il in the National Contention, by delagataa who i i 11 J/ia v -ia ?Mr Johnsm., who wsa never beard at b^lo-i at a d. i' gat. from M uoeeoto, cast one rote, whao he should ha-1- g-rrn. If an/ at all, btil the half of ooa rutc. comcsiox. Frliow C;t reo?We hat * tb'ia e* plained at length Ma eoutrortrer betweon the s .poofter* of Breckinridge and lane upon thr one a.dr, and the regular nominees of the democratic party up 11 (be other. It rt-taa os for i s to add, aa the sentiment of the Daaacratx National Committee, and ar the univeraal aentlmcnt of the auppo'teri of Dung las aod Johnaoo, that aa tain the strength of the national democracy in iwy State .Ni-rtti aii<t Sctlb, Mid we intend to ascertain H. Kf LaTr made no proposition for a joint electoral ticket in sny -late iu 1 w? < irneatly exhort J on t > reject nook proportions md.ynantly, whenever and stw rrrw miits. if ?r bare any frlerida In any State, let those frl< ad* ctll a Mate ronvonlli t> at once :ind nominate a lull electoral ticket, piedfri* to the trrlus rr support of Itouglss and .inhnion We ran agree to nothing elae, because to aoknow ?-dit** the right of a factious minority to dictate their own t rm of ro < p"-?t'on ?suffer Hu m I# violate the solemn profeaa.ons of the democratic party aad trampin nailer foo. cur democratic usages?would be to disband the national orgtniKatlon at once Do not fell, .therefore, to act immediately; assemble ynunreirsa 1 ererywbero, by Stores by couatlcw aad by aeigbbsrhoodr. take nocounsel, and lataa to oo suggestion from thorn who hsve ah shauu fully denertod the nut local da vote Indirectly, at Iran. lor Idaceln and II nulin. a coda fur lnauirr-aliiif, a?i' irrrprcraiblr conflrfn' between the North and tb" Smth. and therrfo-e a vote for the dtanninn of the Hla i*. I'r ik | dereired h> thr tdanaiMc aatrrtions of yonr miciiik k. Hri-rkicridf aud l.uir harr no alrroftli, not the leant. In any of thr Nor htm Matea They will not I reprice on? electoral cole in the North, and rroopt, pir1 haya. la three or hiur Northern Hans, will not have rrea an electoral ticket. I (to the other hand, If Uir Southern deaucracr nbooit now dia?'rl ilir democrary of the Norih, It would h? aa rod or the alliance beiweeu uiraa. What rroiaina, thea, i.' il,. 81 in if -be would thr roualitutioo, the ' I ninn, and thr integrity ant Wapa* of Ibe drtnorruie | party, but thr cordial auppoM aaa com <queat elect,oa at j I'oiifrlaa and Johnt-otif We cooim'l tbcae ivner to your determinate. Their i ioiporuiicetaonot be over eatimalod, tbry involve the fate of Uic d, n.n ralir party and of lliat I a ion It har aa faithliilly, aad rooataully, and n-alotialy mvuUinrl Mll? TAVI/IK, Chairman. (It'll L' Well AI.RKKT MOT? RAILROAP1. VTT,W tome TO TTTF WHITK fMOI'NT A IfK A N|t Ud 1^1 HOmf *" ? ?<< ?? ?, OA ( inmri <iri:t rlw , mmt ptr?A?i? unit* l? Oadmafevr*, aaA Af* M iht- Nnw Vi<? ?a4 Xiw Bura ItiYoAd otto*. Tn# M*w?b V. T. \TKW TORK AKI) HAlim KATl.ROvn COHFRITT. i> TARK TO At.PART. tt On ?nd ifVrr HondAjr. Ouf OS, HAD, trnlao will Ino 'j"y"'L*l'y*'t *'".on Aorlt, t? f _ I .X wunfm. 7?, II mm .1 w r. if . ?* H*?? utd Hll *?j notion*. 2 Jk 4 u4 ft P. M. | For WftHr rUinn ??d nil ?,, hauoo*. ft 1ft p!?., front WbJtm i EfUiiif0*- *.'*'r,mn ? "opFta* ? wF ImnAbrtdso ?nd nUljrio Above. p,, Mover PliUiUt. 4 SO P. K, ? *' > if PlAinn Old Motion* Above. Tbt* L *in raw In Wllertne NetonlAy n?no|n#. Pnr 4lbonp 10 IS A. M.. n tlkil i.rrf'nuwni u **"" FV?inA, Hertford. ( rem Holm oinft ?ill l.mvr WilU*m??>rldr'. Btopplnft *1 nli ?m?Mkttaua. (i ft. 9 a. M Whftr Pltunv nnpptnf aft ' And i A.M., unit 4 Iftnnd 7 P.M. ftl All irftj nUOone Dme riAlnn. * A M , Mopping nl All AUUnne north of Pi* ibAAA. Tito I Io.m MMWrmnnrorr *o?rtn? mnmlA* ft V A H OnInn P?;k. ft P M.. annntoft a( nil aIaUom north of l?nlbMn A: ?a - a V *tnpp n> At *11 etntmae north of Whir Pun. JOUJi ii RCUILL, Itoim " |?in'in4ai

Other pages from this issue: