New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-25

LOGAN'S ASSA ULT ON REPUBLICANISM.
The action of a packed majority in the
Republican State Convention of Illinois, last
week, and the steps taken for self-protectOn
by the outraged minority, will force the
National Convention squarely to meet and
decide the most important issue ever raised in
| a like body in this country. And being vital
| in principle, and wide-reachiDg in results, the
question deserves, and should receive, the
candid consideration both of the Convention
and the country. Upon its decision will
depend the character of the future conventions
of the party-whether they shall become in
fact, as well as in theory, odious machines for
sitting public sentiment and fOrcibly decreeing
prearrangcd results, or whether they shall con-
tinue to be great representative bodies, the
action of which shall be the expression OF
popular preference, and the decisions of which
shall inspire the respect of the voters of our
faith In this Illinois case, the National Con-
vention will be confronted with the distinct
question: What authority has the rightful
power to choose the district delegates to the
National Conventiona Does it rest in each
district, or can it:be seized and used by q State
Convention against the protest of the repre-
sentatives, or the people, of the district
Manifestly, the answer to this question must
determine the nature Of the body. IF in the
former, each district In the Union has an
indefeasible right of independent represen-
tafion, which would secure the representation
In the Convention of all the interests existing
within every Congressional subdivision in
the Union. If in the latter, the districts will
at once disappear, States will take their places,
thirty eight voices will supplant seven
hundred, and representation will cease to be free
and equal.
Hitherto, this point has not been presented to
the Convention. 1t has been reserved to this
day and to the contest which it has excited. to
develop the arbitrary and abominable practices
which have at once startled and shocked the
country and scandalized all true Republicans.
There have, however, been controversies which
partly trenchcd upon this ground. And the
decision in them gives basis for belief that the
coming Convention will not be behind its pre-
decessors in indicating the rights now put in
serious jeopardy. But these controversies were
confined to the point whether State COnven-
ton, by the adoption Of unit rule Instruc-
tiOns could bind the action of dissenting dele
gates. This has been decided at least twice
adversely to the claim-Once by acquiesccnce,
and once by direct vote on an appeal. The
decision by acquiescence was in the National
Convention of 1868, which was held in
Chicago, when five Pennsylvania delegates re-
fused to vote for Andrew G. Curtin for Vice
President, as they were directed to do under
u unit rule" instructions adopted by the State
Convention of that year. Then the right of
voting was accorded, on claim and
without resistance; and the present Senator
Cameron, now chairman Of the National Com
mittee, and member of the coming Convention,
had the pleasure of breaking the unit rule"
of that year. The decision, by direct vote on
appeal, was in the Convention Of 1876. when
certain Pennsylvania delegates refused to con-
tinue to vote for John F. Hartranft for Presi-
dent, as they were directed to do under unit
q" rule instructions adopted by the State Con-
ventiOn Of that year. Their claim of the right |
of individual voting on their judgment, and un-
der responsibility to their immediate cOnstitu-
ents, was affirmed by the President of the Con-
ventioD, and on appeal and after discussion |
was affirmed by the Convention itself. The |
reasoning Of this ruling, which protects the |
delegate from the tyranny of his colleagues, has |
Its analogy and vindicanon in the practice Of
every County Convention and Of every State
Convention in tha land, and Is simply i'm |