New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-05-27
CAN THE NATIONAL CONVENTION PURIFl
ITSELR2

1IDELCI
The National Convention Of 1880 will be re-
markable not only for the important questions
of principle which it's meeting suggests but for
the questions of practice which it cannot escape
deciding. Since 1864, no Convention has been
confronted with 80 many questions OF contest
as that at Chicago will be. The right of the
overridden districts in Illinois is of chief i'm
portance; but there will be contests between
delegations from Louisiana, and within THE
delegations of Alabama, Kansas, Pennsyl-
vania, and probably other States. "What is
to be done ~ is already asked; and the " third
"termers" are apparently preparing to carry
the National Convention by tactics equally dis
graceful with those adopted in Illinois. So in
sane is their recklessness that they even have
the hardihood to deny the jurisdiction Of a Ma
tional Convention over O contest within dele
CATION aud on the plea that the Convention
@cannot undertake to inquire into the titles of
Congressional delegations, and will not run the
risk OF being compelled to make 292 separate
investigations" This plea is illogical, and
absurd. The Convention, by the very terms Of
it's call, and its uniform constitution, is COM
posed Of two classes Of dclegates-those at
large and district delegates. Each class is an
exist as readily in the election Of one class as in
the other. Where is the basis then, for the plea
that the Convention can consider allegations of
fraud, or misuse of power, or other adequate
cause of action, as to one class but not as to the
other7 Manifesty the jurisdiction of every
representative body is as extensive as itself,
and it reaches equally to all its parts. The
plea that the number of contests may thus
become excessive is gratuitous, though it
would prove nothing if it were otherwise But
in point of fact, it is limited to few cases. and
to principles which are readily cOmprehended.
Fortunately, we are not without q precedent
on this subject. In the Convention of 1864,
which met at Baltimore, there were questions
raised concerning the delegations from
Arkansas, from Florida, from Louisiana, from
South Carolina, from Tennessee and from Viz
GINA. Besides, there were two cOntesting
delegations from Missouri. What was the
action of the Convention All these cases were
referred to q Committee on Credentials, who
patiently heard the facts, and reported their
Judgment to the Convention. This committee
not only took jurisdiction of the great
cases named, but they actually took
jurisdiction Of the minor matter--that
of the Ist District from Pennsylvania, re-
specting which they made, through their chair
man, the Hon. Preston King, this report ::
1.-THE committee find that the certificates
q from Pennsylvania are all regular, with the
exception of the certificate for the LIST District
"of that State. In that district the certificate
Estates that four delegates were elected. The
"district is entitled to but two. The facts
Gwere reported to the committee, and the com
@mittee recommend that the two having the
@highest number of votes be admitted as dele
Ggates, and that the other two be admitted as
alternates."
We quote this, not for its inherent import
ance, but for the purpose Of showing that, on
any allegation touching the right of delegate
to his seat, the Conventions Committee on
Credentials has jurisdiction, and is bound to
make inquiry, and has actually made inquiry, in
all such cases. In this case, the point against
the LIST District does not appear even to have
been raised IN open Convention, and regularly
referred to it; but 1t was somehow brought to
the attention OF the committee, who at once