Washington sentinel., 1856-03-22
THE CINCINNATI CONvENTION AND
THE TWO-THIRDs RULE.

AhI SANSiNNATI CONtENTION AND
THE TWO-THIRDs RULE.
1t is reported that the friends of some of the
candidates whose names viii be presented to
the National Democratic Convention on the
hrst Monday in June next, are determined to
make an earnest effort to rescind the two-thirds
rule. The principle that vote of two-thirds
should be required to nominate has been re-
cognized by every National Democratic Con
vention since 1882, when the first body OF this
character assembled in the country, The effort
to rescind rule which has been endorsed by
the greatest and best men of the land, and
which, for nearly a third of century has regu-
lated the conventional proceedings Of the
Democratic party of the nation, must be re-
garded as of fearful import; and the success
of such a demonstration as seems to be con
templated, it cannot be denied, would be at
and dangerous character.
The testimony of all mankind is undivided
in the opinion that the Constitution of the
United States is the most stupendous fabric of
No instrument framed by man so completely
accomplishes the object for which it was de-
signed but to say it is perfection itself, would
be saying too much. Perhaps no part of its
machinery has, in practice, produced effects 50
much opposed to the original intention, as that
relating to the election of the Chief Executives
and it was in consequence Of the discovery of
the unexpected tendency in this department
President was ipst amended.
BY examining the journals of the proceed
ings of the Convention which framed the Con-
stitution, and the brief records Of the debates
be seen that it was first agreed that the people
should not, either directly or indirectly, parti-
cipate in the election of President, but that
he should be elected by the House of Repre-
obedience, however, to the urgent demands Of
Pennsylvania, and some of the other large
States Of the confederacy, the Convention re-
considered the article relating to the Executivey
and decided that each State should appoint
electors equal to lis representation in the two
Houses of Congress that these electors should
endeayor to elect President, and failing to
do so, should become, in fact, nominating
body to the House of Representatives.
The trainers Of the Constitution did not in
tend that the people should, by popular cleo
tions determine who should be President; ;
their idea was, that the Legislature of each
State should appoint, or the people select, from
among the most distinguished men of each
member Of the Commonwealth, the requisite
number Of electors These electors, it was
but reasonable to suppose, from their long ex-
perience, and Identification with the politics of
the country, would be best qualified to desig.
nate the most suitable men in the nation for
the responsible Office of Chief Magistrate. 1t
was supposed too, that the electors, however dis.
tinguished and capable, would not be likely all
to agree upon one or two persons as eminenty
calculated to fill the Presidential chair; but,
on the contrary, it was presumed they would be
much divided in opinion as to the person who
should occupy the highest seat in the Govern
ment Hence,it was provided in the original arti-
Gle of the Constitution, that from the five highest
on the list, the House of Representatives should
elect the President. From the whole tenor OF
the proceedings of the Convention, it is evident
the members supposed the usual mode of cleo
tion, in after times, would be by the House Of
Representatives.
1t is to be observed, that when the House
elects President, each State exerts the same
power that is exerted by each other member o
the Union New York, with her immense popu.
lar vote, possesses no more influence than
Arkansas or South Carolina.
The great contest in the House Of Repre-
sentatives in 1901, between jefferson and Burr,
led to the alteration of the Constitution in re.
gard to the election Of the Executive. The
old caucus system was then resorted to to
nominate candidates for President and Vice
President, in order 10 prevent the election going
into the House; this machinery virtually de-
stroyed that influence, which each State, as o
State, was intended to have in the choice of q
Chief Magistrate. There was one merit in the
ancient system Of caucuses, as compared with
the Convention system, brought into operation
10 1882, for under the caucus arrangements OF
an earlier period, no one was permitted 10 par
ticipate in the nomination who did not actuall,
represent Democratic constituency, while
under the operation of the present plan such
States as Vermont and Massachusetts are ad
mitted TO equal privileges with Virginia, though
neither Of the former has ever voted, or il
likely in future TO cast her vote for Demo
cratic nominee.
II the principle Of nomination, by a mere
majority, should now be substituted for that o.
the two-thirds rule, the North would always
make the nomination, and the South would be
compelled to support it. 1t seems to us, there
fore, that the sheerest justice to the Southern
portion Of the confederacy demands that there
h. - al II: ~