Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-12-29
ORIGIN OF THE rwO.rHIRDs RULE.

SeA4a &&
In the nomination of a President the
Democratic party has always, since
National Conventions we're instituted,
demanded a vote Of two-thirds for an
election. This is the history of the
famous two-thirds rule: 1t was originally
adopted ct the first National Democratic
Convention held in Baltimore in 1882.
So far as it then applied, and for two
Presidential nominations afterwards, it
amounted to nothing. Andrew jackson
and Martin Van Buren, had all the votes.
The idea of the rule may have been to
show their popularity with the Demo
cratic masses. 1t was really first brought
into notice in 1874. Then, for the first
time since the Convention system was
organized, there was a contest for nomi-
nation. Nearly all the delegates to the
Convention had been instructed by their
State and district Conventions to vote
for Martin Van Buren,, Of New York, for
President. They took the favorite sub
iect to instructions. The snnexa-
ton Of Texas was sprung by the
Administration Of John Tyler. The
South favored it because it was believed
that it would strengthen the institution
Of slavery. Mr.. Van Buren, opposed it
in an able letter. 1t wal determined to
throw him overheard. Then the two.
thirds rule displayed its power. There
were many delegates who, DESTROYS that
Mr.. Van Buren, should not be the csndi-
date, nevertheless did not vote against
the instructions Of their constituents.
Therefore they made a compromise with
their conscience. They voted for Van
Barsn. They gave him a majority of
the convention on the first ballot. But
they had previously voted for the adop-
ton Of the two-thirds rule, which rem
dered his nomination impossible. Its
result gas the selection of a candidate,
namely, James K. Polk, Of Tennessee.
This has since been repeated in the
nomination Of Franklin Pierce, Of New
Hampshire. From that day to this, al
every national convention, the two
thirds rule has been like the law Of the
Modes and Persians. The Cincinnati
Enquirer has taken ground against the
two-thirds rule in presidential conven.
tons in the following style:
1t is the great mistake in our political
system. Why is it necessary Can any
one teii2 /! two.thirds are expedient,
why is not three-fourths better, aud nine
tenths better still2 The organization Of
q National Convention ia upon the model
Of the election. Every State has fhe
number Of votes that it has in the Elec.
toral College. A majority Of those
Electors is enough. Why should it not
be 10 the Convention2 We are not
aware that this inquiry has ever been
answered. Inc OppOsltlOn 70 the de-
mocracy have never had any such anti
democratic rule. There the majority
governs. We rejoice to say that the
Democracy of Ohio have always been
firm and committed in their opposition
to the twO-thirds rule. In 1874, when,
as we have said, it logically origin.
ated, it vas voted against by Ohio,
whose Democratic delegation was then
headed by the man who will ever be re.
vered by the Democracy Of Ohio, whose
trumpetblast so often summoned them
to victory, and whose courage ouly rose
higher under defeat. We allude to Colo.
mel Samuel Medary. Il is about time
that we we're through with this injurious
rule thst we planted ourselves upon the
old Democratic bulwark-the majority.
The supposed necessities Of negro slavery
brought the t~wo-thirds rule into being
Slavery having disappeared, it should
disappear also. We trust that the next
convention will quietly ignore it and pro
coed to nominate a candidate who is &C.
ceptable to the majority Of the people