The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-19

him to the Dominican port Of Monte Christi
After the success of the insurrection in the
earlier part of the present year, public opinion
seemed to be unanimous in designating Sal
nave as the ablest man for the Presidency. He
accordingly assumed the government as Pro-
Visional President, and, as our latest des-
patches from Hayt indicate, has just been
elected President by unanimous vote.
Representation of MinOritIes-''CumuIa
tive Voting"
From, the World
The ingenious and aptly illustrated argu-
ment of Senator Buckalew in favor of what is
called cumulative voting elected unequivocal
expressions of concurrence in his conclusions
from two or three intelligent Senators. Senator
Reverdy Johnson, in particular, stated that he
had been for some time acquainted with the
works of Mr.. Mill and Earl Grey; that they
had convinced his judgment that the argu-
ments of Mr.. Buckalew exceeded theirs in
cogency and pertinent illustration; and that
he, Mr.. Johnson, as then advised, would vote
for such a reform whenever it should be more
seasonably presented.
The method of cumulative voting, as a
means of securing more adequate representa-
tion of minorities, is deemed by Mr.. Buckalew,
and do ubtess is in reality, preferable in point
of sim plicity to any of the other methods
which have been suggested for attaining the
same result. But while unhesitatingly en-
dorsing its simplicity, we reserve any express
sion OF opinion respecting its efficacy, until we
have presented the plan and Mr.. Buckalews
leading illustrations. 1t strikes us that its
practical efficacy must be the turning point of
the discussion, inasmuch as there can be no
reasonable difference of opinion as to the JUS
tice of the end, and simplicity in the means is
a decisive ground of preference, if they are
also eficaciOus.
The principle of cumulative voting requires
the abolition of the single district system
which now prevails in the election of members
of Congress, and asks for each citizen the privi-
lege of casting as many votes as his State is
entitled to members. Before the single dis
trict system was adopted, many of the States
elected their congressman by what is called
general ticket; each elector depositing ballot
containing as many names as the State had
seats under the apportionment. The district
| system was adopted to accomplish the very
! same object which Mr.. Buckalew seeks to at
| tain by its abolition-a fairer representation
| of minorities. Under the general ticket sys-
| tenn, the whole delegation of State was
| given to the dominant party, even though it
! succeeded in the election by single vote.
| every locality in which the minority
! party could out-vote their opponents gained
a representative in Congress. Merely to
abolish the districts and do nothing else,
would operate against the minorities. AS
parties have lately stood, it would give all the
| members from New York, all the membersifrom
| Pennsylvania and indeed from most ofthe States
now represented to the Republicans. How is
this proposed to be avoided By what is
| called cumulative voting; that is, by per-
| mitting every eector in a State which is enti-
tied to ten members, to cast, if he chooses, ten
votes for one candidate, or five votes each for
| two candidates. or two votes each for five can
| didates, or to distribute his ten votes among
| candidates in any manner he pleases. We
will do Mr.. Buckalew the justice to permit
him to give his own illustrations of the ex-
| pected operation of this method, unmixed
with any running commentary of ours, and
uncolored by our modes of statement:-
"Now, let me illustrate how this scheme would
work by particular example. Take the case
| OF Vermont State with $4,000 voters, 40, 900 of
| whom are members OF the majority party, and
| existing apportionment OF laW-that State is
entitled TO three members The numbers |
| have stated are very nearly the exact numbers
| OF voters in that state Every one az a glance
| can see what ought 10 take place. The majority,
| having 10000 votes, should choose two members
| of Congress from that state, and the minority,
| having twenty thousand votes, should elect
| one member. Then there would be just repre-
| EentallOn. 1nen Jnere could De no complaint
| in any quarter. Then our principle OF the re-
| presentation of the people would be applied 10
the particular case, and no human being can
| conceive OF any argument or objection against
| that result.
"This system OF cumulative voting renders
| just That result certain-renders It morally inn
| possible that any other should take place; and
why? Because the minority, cumulating their
votes upon single candidate, can give him
| sixty Thousand votes; each elector giving his
candidate three votes, it would count him sixty
thousand. Ihe forty thousand constituting the
political majority In the State, IL they attempt
TO vote Tor three candidates. can only give them
/ forty thousand each III they cumulate their
votes upon two candidates, which is what they
are entitled TO, they can give them sixty thou
sand votes eachi SO that two men Will be elected
4 to Congress representing the majority, and one
man representing the minority, and IL is i'm
possible for either one of those political inte-
rests to prevent the other from obtaining its due
share of representation.
Take the case OF Pennsylvania with twenty
four members. In that State at the last Con.
eTessional election there were polled 596IH
votes The majority marty noIled 909 7o0 and
the minority 292,80l. IL thus appears that there
was a majority in favor of one politieai Interest
| in that State at that Congressional election
amounting to IL ,480 votes. Multipiying that by
| hVe-onenith OF the population ordinarily
being the voters of the State-and Won see that
/ that surplus which one party possessed of votes
] exceeding nity-nve thousand-less one-han the
number OF inhabitants in the State entitled to a
representation In Congress, so that this surplus