and effect of the two-thirds rule, would be decided before the question was put on the resolution.

The President. It will be so decided.

The proposition of Mr. Howard, declaring that the President would not declare any candidate elected who did not receive two-thirds of the vote of the Electoral College, was then brought forward as a question of privilege.

Mr. Howard said he would use no argument to enforce this on the committee, but would leave it at once to a decision of the chair.

The chair is of opinion that this proposition of the State of Tennessee, involving the question as to how the chair will decide the vote on the election of the candidate for the Presidency, is in order.

Mr. Richardson. On that, I appeal from the decision of the chair, and call the vote by States.

After some discussion, Mr. Richardson withdrew his appeal, and moved to lay the resolution of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Howard) on the table.

The vote was taken by States, and the motion to lay on the table lost:

The question then being on Mr. Howard's resolution, Mr. Stuart of Michigan raised the point of order that the effect of the resolution was to change the rule of the Convention, and must lie over. He read the rule, which was that " two-thirds of the votes given" should be necessary to nominate. He declared language could not be more explicit.

Mr. Howard said a case in point had arisen in 1844, when the New York delegates were excluded from the Convention. The decision then was that it required two-thirds of the electoral vote to elect.

The President said the rule of the Convention of 1852 was in substance as the gentleman had stated. It was true a rigid construction of the rule would seem to be that it alluded to the votes cast on the ballot in this Convention. But the words are, "Two-thirds of the votes given in this Convention."

The gentleman further argues the inconvenience that would arise from the voluntary absence of one-third of the Convention, so as to prevent a nomination. This Convention has no legal authority-its authority is only of a moral character.

The gentleman bad remarked on the inconvenience that might be experienced by a Convention assuming that a third of the delegates should withdraw and prevent a nomination; but it would be a still greater inconvenience should a small minority of a Convention be enabled to force a nomination on the people of the United States. The nomination of a Convention is only a recommendation to the people of the country, but in the judgment of the chair, the consideration of convenience and inconvenience would, if taken into the question at all, require that the act of the Convention should be the act of all the States of the Union.

The chair is not of opinion that the words of the rule apply to the votes cast for the candidate, but to the votes that are cast here, in this Convention, or two-thirds of all the votes to be cast by the Convention. So the chair is of opinion that the resolution of Mr. Howard of Tennessee contemplates no change or modification of the rules of the house. Another reason is, that it is not competent for the chair to construe a rule, when it is proposed by a vote of the house to decide its construction. The effect of the resolution of the gentleman from Tennessee, if adopted, will be to direct the President that in the votes to be cast under his inspection, he shall make only such a decision as to the nomination as the resolution dictates. The resolution of the gentleman from Tennessee is, therefore, in order.

Mr. Stuart of Michigan trusted that it was not necessary for him to disclaim any discourtesy to the chair, when he appealed from this decision, and he would only say that the construction of the chair, that the words "the votes given here were meant to apply to all the votes cast by the Convention, could never receive the sanction of logic.

Several delegations having asked leave to retire for consultation, desired that the chair would state, before they retired, the exact position of the question.

There was intense excitement and great confusion in the hall.

The chair explained that the question was upon the appeal from the decision, that the resolution of Mr. Howard did not change the rules, and was, therefore, in order.

The vote was announced as follows:

Mr. Stuart moved to amend the resolution by adding: And that every person who casts a vote binds himself hereby to vote for the candidate nominated.

Mr. Howard. I ask by what right the gentleman makes himself a keeper of the consciences of his peers.

Mr. Butler of Massachusetts raised the point of amendment was not germane to the original resolution. previous question.

order that the He moved the

Mr. Russell of Virginia said that if Virginia remained in a Convention, her honor bound her to abide by its decisions. [Applause.]

After further discussion, the chair decided that the amendment of Mr. Stuart was not germane to the original resolution, and hence, was not in order.

The previous question was then ordered, and the vote being called by States, Mr. Howard's resolution was adopted by the following vote:

Mr. Bigler moved to reconsider the vote and that the motion be laid on the table. The vote of New York was decisive on this question. Balloting for a candidate for the office of President of the United States was now in order. Mr. King of Missouri nominated Stephen A. Douglas. Mr. Caldwell of Kentucky nominated "the favorite son and incorruptible statesman of Kentucky," James Guthrie. Mr. Patrick of California nominated Daniel S. Dickinson. Mr. Russell of Virginia nominated R. M. T. Hunter. Mr. Ewing of Tennessee nominated Andrew Johnson. Mr. Stevens of Oregon nominated Joe Lane.

After the vote of New York had decided that it was impossible to nominate Douglas, she proceeded, the roll of States being called, to vote for him as demurely as if she meant it.

The first ballot for the nomination of a candidate for the Presidency, was taken about dusk, amid the most profound silence. When the name of Douglas was put in nomination, a feeble yelp went up from the North-western delegations. It was not hearty and strong, but thin and spiritless. There was no hopefulness in it, but something of defiance. It was as much as to say, "Well, if we can't nominate him, you cannot nominate any body else."

The spokesmen of the North-western delegations tried to make their votes for Douglas impressive, but it was a failure. They said so many votes for "Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois," but it would not do. They were overhung now by a cloud of South Carolinians in the galleries, and the cold steel of the new construction of the two-thirds rule bad pierced their vitals. The North-western delegations, commencing with Ohio, had always, until now, produced something of an effect, voting in solid column, according to the direction on the Douglas programme. But McCook of Ohio failed to give any rotundity to the vote, "twenty-three votes for Stephen A. Douglas." Gavit of Indi

ana ripped out the vote of that State, and glared round with the air of an assassin. He looked as if he would cut any man's throat who had any thing to say against that. Richardson of Illinois looked as if at a funeral, and gave the vote of Illinois in a voice like the sound of clods on a coffin. The following is the

While the roll was being called, Mr. Edgerton of Minnesota desired to have his vote recorded for Johnson of Tennessee.

The question was, whether, before the Convention adjourned, Douglas would get a majority of the Electoral College. He crawled up, half a vote at a time, until, on the ninth ballot, he reached the figure 152; but before the vote was declared, the column of the North-west was broken. Gorman denied Edgerton's right to change his vote-chair recognized Edgerton's right to vote as he pleased.

On motion of Mr. Richardson of Illinois, the Convention then ad- ́

journed.