Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1876-05-26

hnlSheQ, nave seen our uaClOua4 t1l~
umph and exultation turned to bitter
ness and shame by the unanimous
reports of three committees OF Con-
gress-two of the House and one
here-that every step OF that mighty
enterprise had been taken in fraud. l
have heard in highest places the
shameless doctrine avowed by men
grown old in public office that the true
way by which power should be gained
in the republic is to bride the people
with the Offices created for their SER
vice. and the true end for which 1t
should be used when gained Is the
promotion of selfish ambition and the
qualification of personal revenge. L
have heard that suspicion haunts the
footsteps of the trusted companions of
the President.
The worst of it all is that Mr.. Hoar
has told the truth. Is it not about
time that party and an administration
with such a record should be driven
in disgrace from place and power
THE TWO THIRDS RULE -
OUGHT 1T TO BE Abolished
As we have heretofore said, we seek
success in this campaign because sue
cess means salvation from the evils OF
corrupt government. To secure sue
cess we are ready to use all honorable
means. Personal preferences, party
traditions, time-honored usage, in
word, everything save principle we are
ready to surrender to secure the cleo
ton of Democrat, good and true, as
the next President of these United
States. But without sufficient reason
for SO doing. we do not see why we
should be called upon to make the
surrender.
To come exactly to the point in a
single word, we do not see why the
two-thi. DIS rule, that is to say, the rule
that requires a concurrence of two
thirds of the delegates to make
Presidential nomination should be
abandoned without some sufficient
reason. Thus far we have seen none
given. When one shall be given, when
it shall be shown that the abandon
ment of that rule will secure the
election of Democrat as President,
we stand ready to make the surrender.
but not until then.
This rule has to-day as much reason
to show for it's preservation as it had
to show for it's creation. It is mis-
take to assume that the only purpose of
the rule was to enable the Southern
Democrats to protect themselves from
the candidacy of an anti-slavery
Northern Democrat. Gran Tucker"
was right in saying it worked as pro-
lection to the South in that matter, but
that was not the only thing it was Gre
ated to do or that it did do.
There Is a reason for the exist
ence of the two-thirds rule in ma
tional convention, that obtains in no
other political convention so far as we
know. The National Democratic Con-
vention consists of delegates from all the
States, no matter of what political COM
plexion. The rankestand largest Radi-
cal State sends delegates to National
Democratic Convention just as we'll
| as the most assured Democratic State.
| By combination of delegates from
Radical States, with the help of few
delegates from other States, it is pos
sible then for nomination to be con-
trolled by States that cannot possibly
| help to elect. Such anomination would
inevitably tend to secure defeat.
| There must be some safeguard then
against the possibility of such action
| on the part of States that send Demo-
cratic delegates but cast no Demo
cratic electoral votes. It was
simply a measure of self protection
then, and it is one now. In State
| election, Democratic votes in Rad
ical counties count just as much as they
| do in Democratic counties, and so it is
in county elections as to Democratic
votes in Radical townships. In Presi-
| Dental elections, Democratic votes
| in Radical States count for absolutely
nothing, and hence arises the necessity
for some rule that will prevent the del
egstes from Radical States from hav-
ing too much control in making nomi-
nations. The reason for the rule exists
to-day as strongly as it ever did. The
object is not to promote this man or
to injure that man, but to advance the
interest of the party. Individuals are
as nothing while the party is every
thing. Suppose the States were SO.
nearly equally divided that the vote of
Delaware would decide the matter? It
will be seen at a glance, if the two
thirds rule did not prevail, that com
bination between Delaware and the
delegates in the convention from Rad
ical States would control the nomina-
ton, and yet the only electoral vote
cast for the nominee by the States
represented in the convention, would
be the vote of Delaware in
a word, the States that would have to
elect the nominee would have no voice
in naming him. Is rule that permits
such injustice fair rule But
whether fair or unfair, that is the
majority rule. The two-thirds rule
renders such injustice impossible.
-, -