The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-24

about the same relative strength that Mr..
Blaine had at CINCINNATI; but Mr.. Blaine
would have been nominated if he could have
obtained a majority of the votes, whereas
Governor Tilden cannot succeed with any
thing less than two-thirds of the whole
number, unless the rule should be discarded.
1t is quite possible that demonstration may
be made against it, but the success of such
an attempt is more than doubtful. If Gov
ernor Tilden were absolutely sure of
majority on the first ballot it might
be safe experiment, for simple
majority is all that is necessary to set aside
the two-thlrds rule. But it is not expected
that Tilden will start with majority, and it
cannot be known what his exact strength is
until after ballot. If On attempt should
be made to dispense with the rule the vote
on that question would be regarded as test
of Tilden's strength, and as some of his sim
cere supporters might vote for the rule, and
all his hollow supporters would be pretty
sure to do SO, his opponents would gain
triumph at the outset, which would impair
his prestige. 1t is for his interest to appear
would be fatal to make that test in the pre-
liminary proceedings unless the result were
known beforehand to be beyond doubt or
question. We incline to think that his
friends will regard it as an experiment too
hazardous to be made. Even a majority of
the New York delegation might be found
voting to sustain the rule; and every such
vote, however intended, would be construed
as hostile to Tilden. A proposal to repeal
the rule is quite as likely to be instigated by
his enemies Us his friends, in order to bring
his strength to this insidious test and dam
age him before the balloting begins.
The first thing every Convention does
after electing it's officers is to adopt the rules
which are to govern its proceedings. This
is always done by simple majority, SO
that the friends of any candidate who
has firm and perfectly assured major
ity may easily vote down the two
thirds rule. It may be said that
this did not prove to be the case in 1874,
when Mr.. Van Buren, entered the Conven-
ton with clear majority Of pledged dele
gates; but the reply is that many of them
were glad of an opportunity to violate their
pledge in substance while keeping it in
form. After the fatal letter on the annexa-
ton Of Texas, which he was entrapped into
writing. many of the delegates who had been
chosen to support him desired his defeat,
and support of the two-thirds rule was
convenient method of enabling them to vote
for Van Buren,, as they had been instructed,
without mourning any danger Of his nomina-
ton. In the same manner, if any of the
professed Tilden delegates at st. Louis
are willing to see him defeated their sup
port of the two-thirds rule would enable
them to desert in reality while keeping faith
in appearance. AS his supporters cannot
know at the outset how much secret disaf-
lection there may be in their own ranks
they are not likely to force the matter to a
test in advance of the first ballot. An
attempt to get rid of the rule in his interest
would be interpreted rs symptom of weak
ness and confession that he could not be
nominated in accordance with established
patty usage, and failure Of the attempt
would be proclaimed by his opponents as
the destruction Of his chances. 1t seems
more probable, therefore, that the two-thirds
rule will be readopted without serious oppo-
sition.
The most common argument against the
two-thirds rule Is that it was cunning
device Of Southern politicians for defeating
Northern candidate who was not SUBJ
servient to their policy. Even if this were
accurate in point of fact it would be mall
adroit line of argument to be taken up
by Governor Tilden's friends at st. Louis.
It is their cue to court the Southern dele
gates. They cannot afford to rake up old
grievances by dwelling upon that part of
the history of the two-thirds rule. Besides,
while it is true enough that the Southern
politicians worked the two-thirds rule rs an
engine for defeating Van Buren,, it is also
true that it was even then the ordinary
usage of democratic national conventions.
The statement we are about to make will
strike many people as strange, but it is
nevertheless strictly accuratc-namely, that
in the whole history of democratic national
conventions, from first to last, there has
never been single ballot for candidates ex-
cept under the two-thirds rule. We make
this broad statement after fresh examina-
ton of the records, and certify that it is true
without exception. The ordinary popular
impression is that the two-thirds rule was
invented by the South in 1874 for the pur-
pose of killing off Mr.. Van Buren,. Among
more intelligent class the impression is that,
although the rule was of earlier origin, it
had fallen into disuse, and was revived for
the same purpose for which most people think
it was invented. There is q color Of truth
in this, because it is correct to say as a mere
naked fact that the Convention of 1910 did
not adopt the two-thirds rule. But why?
For the very sufficient reason that no ballots
were taken in the Convention of that year,
and there was, consequently, no place for