Morning journal and courier., 1880-05-26
NEW HAVEN CONN, MORNING.
Wednesday Morning, May 2e, 1880.
THE UNIT RULE AT CHICAGO.


 At the last Republican national convention the question whether the unit rule should be enforced came up and was decided in the negative. On the second ballot four of the Pennsylvania delegates wanted to vote for Blaine instead of voting for Hartranft, with the rest of the delegation, and were allowed to. The same question is expected to come up at the Chicago convention, and the i'm pression is gaining ground that the great fight of the convention is to be over this matter. It ought to be considered settled but the decisions of one convention are not binding upon another, and if those who are looking after the interests of the leading can didate see his success in the enforcement of the unit rule, their previous course leaves ffs-i tie room to doubt that they will do their best to have it enforced, regardless Of precedent, the rights of the individual or the wishes of independent districts
 If such an attempt is made it will be most vigorously opposed, and in all probability defeated as it ought to be. If State con vention should instruct at all it seems to us that it's power to instruct properly ends with the delegates-at large. In this connection we invite attention to the clear exposition of the rights of the States and of districts by Gene ral Garfield. He says: The delegates to the national conventions are of two classes, dele gates at large and district delegates. The delegates at large which are elected by State conventions, are by virtue of their creation the representatives of the convention to which they owe their official existence. The convention has the undoubted right to instruct them to vote it sees ft but the district delegates are either selected by the people of the district in county or in district convention, or else by delegates from the district to the State convention. So they are creatures of the district and not of the State convention, and they should be left to obey the voice of the people of the district, or, when that is not well defined, to their own individual judgment. A State convention has no right to dictate as to how they shall vote This idea of States instructing district delegates to vote as a unit is the old confederate one and is based on the theory that State is su- preme. The district delegate is in immediate relation to the people, and as State conven- tion has no right to abridge that representa- tive power, for the reason that he is not creature of the convention, district delegate is in the immediate line of the people, the same as 8 citizen is in immediate connection with the nation, and holds that connection above any State authority or license. A cit izen in giving his allegiance to the govern ment is untrammeled by State interference and so 8 delegate representative direct from the people should be allowed to vote as his people request, and not as State conven- ton demands. This State unit instruction business is introduced as one of the confed- crate ideas into Union convention, and the question is, shall the confederate idea usurp Union one and control the convention?
 We hope and expect to see such doctrine as this prevail at Chicago, and the district delegates from States whose conventions have instructed" allowed to vote as their districts desire they shall, they think best. The unit rule is decidedly out of place in a national convention of the Repub- Iican party