New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-28
{. OoNFEnER1TEp or "NIuONALY

This question summarizes the vital issue
which separates the Grant from the anti-Grant
elements. Is the Chicago Convention to be q
| Convention of delegates from Statesf Can q
majority in each delegation rightfully cast the
votes of themselves and the votes of the ga eyed
minority3 Is the Convention composed of
forty-seven units, or of seven hundred and
thirty six units7 Are the masters of these
forty-seven units the bosses" Of the body Z
Is the Convention a truly representative body,
embodying the "Ns tiOnsl" idea, or is it
moulded on the "Confederf te" idea No
more vital questions cen be asked; for on the
answer to them depends the future of the Re-
publican party. Those who put forth the mon
strous pretensions involved in these questions
propose to degrade it. TO cOncede them is to
sign the death-wsrrant of the party. No Con-
ventiOn has ever tolerated this claim. No one
can, without dishonor and disgrace.
1t is manifest that the initial struggles next
week are to be over this question. 1t is not
unnatural that Senator Logan should maintain
the Confederate" idea; for he was State
Rights Democrat up to the outbreak of the Re-
bellion. He appears not to have recovered
from the poison received in early life. Senator
Carpenter Gayly adopts the same notions, as
in harmony with his early instruction, which
was of the same sort. Senator Cameron re-
cogniZes in it the pabuum on which he was fed
dunng his minority. Besides, the tyrannOus
power which this view gives TO the master
spirits of the Grant movement cOmmends it to
them as a fit weapon for dragoOning the Con-
vention into compliance with their demands
And it Is for this reason alone. as we are bound
a. L., L.
sion to these shocking pretensiOns which take
from the Republican party every vcstige of
principle which has hitherto given it success or
responsibility. AS against these pretensions,
the Conventions of the past have laid down
these principles
First, That the Convention is composed of
delegates from States and delegates from Dis
tricts.
Second, That each delegate is an integral
part of the Convention, and represents dis
tinct element in its composition.
Third, That, as such, each delegate has an in
defeasible right to vote once for himself, and
not at all for another.
Fourth, That any device for giving one por-
ton of delegation power to cast the votes of
itself and Of an Overriden minority, is unadul-
terated tyranny, is without sanction IN the
action of any previous Convention, is against
right, and directly tends to the creation of a
political OligarChy in every State.
We have alluded hitherto to the action Of the
Convention of 1875, where the right of indi-
vdual action was solemnly affirmed. We have
also alluded to the action of the Convention Of
1853, where, on the demand of Senator Cam
eron-now one of the loudest advocates of this
un-Republiean doctrine-he and three colleagues
were accorded the right to vote their preference
without regard to the preference Of the majority
of that delegation. We have now to call at
tentiOn to an earlier precedent than either, and
one which, by reason Of the character and repu-
tation Of the men Of 1850. will carry greater
weight than either Of the others. The Pennsyl-
vania State Convention of 1850 made the Hon.
Simon Cameron its candidate for President,
and instructed the delegation from that State
to give him their united support. But the dele
CATION was notaun In opinion, and IL failed
to be unit In action. On the first ballot Mr..
lincoln received four votes for President from
Pennsylvania, and Mr.. Seward received one
vote END half, while General Cameron re-