Page:The History of Oregon Bancroft 1888.djvu/465

Rh And now Joseph Lane aspired to the presidency of the United States. Pending the meeting of a democratic convention in November, which was to elect delegates to the national convention at Charleston, Grover and Curry made speeches throughout the state, the object of which was to obtain the nomination to the vacant senatorship; but dissensions in the party had gone too far to afford a hope of either being chosen by the next legislature. The mutual abuse heaped upon each other by the partisans of the two factions only contributed to widen the breach and complete the disruption of the party. The tyrannical and prescriptive course of the old Lane-Bush democracy was now practised by the Lane-Stout democracy. In 1858 the Statesman had upheld the measure of making Lane's majority the basis of apportionment in the several counties. In 1859 the central committee, following this example, declared that Stout's majority should be the basis of apportionment for delegates to the November convention. A general protest followed, the counties sending as many delegates as they thought fit. Only four were admitted from Marion, which sent ten, and eight counties withdrew, resolving not to elect delegates to the Charleston convention, but simply to pledge themselves to support the national nominee.

Upon the withdrawal of this body of delegates, the delegates of the eleven remaining counties made known their instructions concerning the presidentalpresidential [sic] candidate, when it was found that Josephine county had named Stephen A. Douglas, and Yamhill Daniel S. Dickinson. Other counties refused to nominate Lane. In this embarrassing position those who had so determined, guided by L. F. Mosher, Lane's son-in-law, cut the gordian knot by moving to appoint a committee to report delegates to the national convention with instructions, which was done. The report of the committee named Joseph Lane, Lansing Stout,