Morning journal and courier., 1880-04-09
Sonrual and Gonries.
Friday EeFning, April 9. 1880.
TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

| IWO IMPORTANT QUE1T1ONSs
 The Boston Advertiser calls attention tt
 the two important questions for the consid
 eration of the Chicago convention whicl
 have been raissd in Kansas and Pennsylvania
 The question which will be presented by tn,
 contesting delegates from Kansas will come
 up for the first time. The Republican na
 tional convention has always left the manner | of choosing delegates to 1t to the party 1T
 each State, and there is great variety ot customs in the States. In Maine the foul
 delegates at large have always been elected by
 the Republican members of the Legislature l and the district members by district couvsn- | ticns. In most of the States the system has l been election by State and district conven- 1 tions. A few States have usually made one State convention the elsotlng body for the whole State. In New York few weeks ago | the State convention split itself into district
 conventions and chose delegates, who wsro
 confirmed by the general body. The nation al convention has never assumed to decide how or when delegates should be chosen. This year, however, it will be asked to decide bstween delegates from Kansas who were elected in different ways. The State conven- tion in Kansas undertook to elect aad did make choice of full delegation. The mem berG composing it are all of the same opinion regarding the proper nomination to be made as was the majority of the convention. The district delegates insisted upon the right of local choice, and they have, in one or two districts, elected delegates who will go to Chicago and contest the right of those who will bear the credentials of the officers of the State convention. Hitherto in Kan sas tho system of election by dis tricts has prevailed and the district delegates hays this fact In their favor. But if the del egates to the Kansas convention were chosen under call which permitted them to act for the whole State the right of the majority to change the mode of choice would be defen- sible
 The question raised in Pennsylvania Is con. oernirg the authority of State convention to enforce the unit rule. In 1868 delegate from State which had instructed it's repre- sentatives in the convention to vote As unit claimed the privilege of an individual vote The claim wss& allowed by the president of the convention. In 1876 ths Pennsylvania UeleSallOn nhl been lnBtructeQ 10 ySte AS 8 unit for General Hartranft. delegate from that State insisted upon his right to east his vote for another. The president decided that he might do SO; an appeal was taken, and the president declared that his ruling was sus- tained. A reconsideration was moved and carried by small majority. AS . matter of fact. the rebellious Pennsylvania delegate voted on every ballot in opposition to the me- jority. This year thsre will be g new stass of things Ths State convention of Psnnsylva- mia has instructed all tho delegates, including the district delegates, to vote for General Grant, and the district conventions in some cases instruct the delegates to vote for Mr. Blaine, CT somebody else. This h a decided ly puzz!ing conflict of authority.
 The decision of these two questions will be awaited with much interest. It is to be hoped that they will be treated calmly and wisely, and not alone in reference to thsir fearing upon ths nomination.