LANE FOR PRESIDENT. 447

And now Joseph Lane aspired to the presidency of the United States. Pending the meeting of a demo cratic 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 nomina tion 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 tyran nical and prescriptive course of the old Lane-Bush democracy was now practised by the Lane-Stout de mocracy. In 1858 the Statesman had upheld the measure of making Lane s majority the basis of ap portionment in the several counties. In 1859 the central committee, following this example, declared that Stout s majority should be the basis of appor tionment 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, 15 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 presidental candidate, when it was found that Josephine county had named Stephen A. Douglas, and Yamhill Daniel S. Dickin son. Other counties refused to nominate Lane. In this embarrassing position those who had so deter mined, guided by L. F. Mosher, Lane s son-in-law, cut the gordian knot by moving to appoint a com mittee to report delegates to the national convention with instructions, which was done. The report of the committee named Joseph Lane, Lansing Stout,

15 Marion, Polk, Wasco, Clatsop, Washington, Umpqua, Coos, and Curry.