The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1871-08-05
Saturday Morning August 5, 1871
The Sweeping Victory In ohnils.ton.


closed. Business was suspended. Men
did their duty. The result was victory
in the interests Of good government.
SO it might be elsewhere. All South
Carolina might be redeemed 'if, when
elections occur, every trae'citizen would
turn out and make it his, s,buainess to do
his duty as'a voter. Much has already
been lost by supineness., Much may be
'regaihed by vjgor ahd combination The
viotors in Charleston 'lR;ygsa .doue we'll.
Their friends .thfonghont the whale
State will be graGHed at their SUCCESS. i1tss
Here. in Columbia fRp Result has 'beon,
received with great satisfaction. j; I'D
+ s;f4 y - - -irl ----- iuii ! ~ j
Ths Camden Joarnn - nnd Cumulativst
:.n, Tyvotlng7ip{ur F'9i,tisaI coura.. ~.
tErom the remarks oflthe Canlden
Joa,nal on,;thla bapjeoi., It appears to gp
that our esteemedI Uotemporary misuon-
shaes the spiflp ana, philosophy Of 1As1
cumulative vote Which' the same" We
t:would rise to explain, = lathe first place.
we would observe that onr: :Gotemporary
states the case in terms too sfro;ppg, when
1t intimates that the Tax Payers, Con.
vention laid down the proposition,ithat
cumulative voting was cure for our po-
aitioal grievances.. The language OF tire
report, pdopted By the Contention. ssas
carefully gnnsdea naen .k;s po;a.. e
was claimed that the new method OF
voting would, correct, ip part, the evils
under which; we: labor, bnt it Was not
contendea tbns' it would Ge q cure all.
But, letting this pass, we observe, in the
next place, that we DO not understand
the Adoption Of proportional representa-
tion as 80 surrender to. the majority"
IT is neither surrender, nor any thing in
the nature of surrender. On the other
hand. it is rather q victory on the part
Of the minority. For instance, in the
County OF 'Kershak, there are. let us
suppose, $500! o!Xhites and $500 colored
voters. According to the prinoiple: OF
the cumulative vote. the minority con se-
oure al least one of the three Representa-,
tivss to which the c9dnty Is entitled in
the Legislature. But the cumulative
system does not restrict the minority to
this one member. If they can influence
the. opposition. they, may .lhave votes
enough to cumnlate upon two or even
three; but they would do this at their
risk ..i.,.., icr.raN 11iis''"
The Journal says; y..Let .,e advocates
OF thia measure show us how, we are, to
gain anything in tile Senate by the ou-
,mulative vote. and how in the election Of
Governor and aH :;other executive
ofieers2" We answer that, Of course,
from the nature of the system, the 'ou-
muiative vote does not apply unless
there are more than one to be. elected.
In case of Governor and all other execu-
tive officers we could gain nothing. Bm
IL is also true that ,oe aoouM lose nothing.
Ia those cases, we would stand just
where we now stand. and the. majority
principle would apply. But, in all other
cases, there would bo proportional rep
resentation--to7 our. advantage to the
advantage Of the minority. But to come
directly to the point: The gist OF the
Journals objection to the cumulative
vote. is, that it ''leaves no room for the
expansion OF the party, or tho exercise
of those powers which are the fruits OF
intelligence. education. knowledge, ex-
pe7iencs and wealth; but contents
itself with a simple proportional nnme-
rical representation" We cannot but
think that the Journal misapprehends
the scope OF proportional presentation.
when we And it coming to such con-
clusion. s.ar
Proportionalrepresentation does no: .f:r
tho minority rot establish the propo,-
ton beioeen parties. This ratio is snbject
to change subject to all the influence Of
intelligence. or education, or knowledge.
or experience. or wealth. There is room
Eor oil possible expansion. There is,
nnder the cumulative system, .:'ao pent.
up Utica"~to contract our powers. But
proportional representation does this:
4 n