The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-07-23
Min,oyities.

Is
4. In Alexandra the vote in the First Ward
at The late primary election was returned
HuSTos, 1oS; SRAI.Es and yes Hun I,
'ToS,s Trends claimed all the Delegates for
the General. who was indeed entitled to
them under the plan adopted In that city.
In each OF the other three wards OF the
city, NEALs received a, minority Of the
woes, and was declared entitled 70 all the
delegates, though HUNToS received large
vote in every ward. The rule Is not SO un-
fair as it might seem 10 be, since in other
eonnties-taGe Eanquier, For instance.
General HUTTON viii probably &c. all the
delegates, though Mr.. NEALE will no doubt
receive large VOTE The loss in one county
is balanced by the gain in another; and SO
& the plan works out pretty fair ...l
ss In this district the same plan, or some
other, is soon.to be adopted. The District
Committee has, we think, been called upon
TO say whether the candidate receiving a
majority OF the votes In q county or city
shall, be entitled to all the delegates, or to
only his fair proportion Of them. according
to the number OF votes received by him and
by each Of the other candidates. 1t must oe
plain to every iair.minded man that whatever y
rule may be adopted should operate over
! the whole district. It would be mani
festIy unjust to all the other candidates to
permit Mr.. WINSTON TO consolidate the vote
OF Louisa as against bis competitors, and
vet allow him q number ofqthe delegates
from Henrico or Richmond or Chesterfield
or Caroline proportional to the number o.
votes he might receive in those counties
So as TO any other candidate. General Jof
JOHNSTON, for instance, it is supposed viii
receive much the strongest vote in Rich
mond. Suppose he shall receive two thirds
OF the Richmond votes and Mr.. CLoPTos
two thirds OF the Chesterfield vote: sbal
they be entitled the one to all the delegate;
from Richmond, and the other to all thu
delegates from Chesterfield! That is the
very interesting and important question
which the District Committee has been
called upon to decide.
AS we said yesterday, we have always al
Ivocated the plan OF allowing the minority
10 be represented. In 1874, whenthe City
Committee consolidated the entire vote o,
this city upon Governor WALKER, we pro.
tested against the system. In 1877, When
il was proposed to consolidate the vote Of
Richmond upon that candidate for Cover
nor who should receive The highest vote NJ
the primary election, we again protested
In the former instance all protests were IN
ayaling. In the latter, the City COMMITTEE
determined to allow each candidate for
Governor to have whatever number OF del-
esates he might prove himself TO be entl-
tied to by his vote in the primary
election. So that, so far as this city is con-
cerned, there is precedentfor consoildatins
The vote upon one candidate, and prece-
dent for dividing it up. But inasmuch as
this city is not alone concerned, ana as
whatever plan is followed in Richmond
should be followed in the counties, 1t BE-
hooyes the District Committee to relieve the
local committees OF the several cities and
counties OF the district Of the task OF under
taking to agree amongst themselves upon
any plan. We say, let the minority in every
city or county be represented in the Con-
vention-but not at the expense OF the ma
jority. 1t might work greater injustice to
allow solid delegations from two or three
counties to combine with minority delega'
tions from this city, or from other counties,
than to require all the delegations to be
solid.
There is but one indispensable thing
fair plan, and one Fat shall be the same in
one county as in another.