The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-05-11
DEFERRED MATTER
Republican National Committee.

Republican National Committee.
The informal meeting of members Q
the Republican National Committee il
Washington recently had before it severa
Important questions. incidentally the lib
eralization of public thought and the prop
agaton Of liberal ideas in the South wer
referred to, and an expression OF thos
present was given earnestly in favor of
nnion OF the Republicans of the Southern
States with such liberal elements in thei
State as promise progress in the direction
OF liberal national sentiment and broad
er political ideas that will insure free bal
lot and fair count, and that in national at
fairs will antagonize the principles and pol
Icy OF Bourbon Democracy.
1t may be assumed. taking the sentiment
entertained by members Of the Comm ittet
| present, that in future political contest.
more attention will be shown the South in
Congressional and Presidential elections
and that all legitimate means will be em
ployed to encourage and bring out the lib
eraf vote OF theaSouthefn States. This has
been too long neglected, under the impress
sion that the South was barren field for
Republican progress. But his N mistaken
view is finding correction in the man fiesta
lions in Virginia and other Southern States,
Tor the example given in this State has
opened up to public comprehension the po-
litical possibilities in the South. Well di-
rected effort and sagacious management
will assure results that are not now ex-
pected, and demonstrate that the labors and
sacrifices OF Southern Republicans have not
been in vain.
The adoption of the resolution offered by
Hon. W. 2. Frye, the member from Maine,
embraces the primary subject for which the
informal meeting assembled. 1t reads,
THAT there be a meeting of the Republic
can National Convention at Washington
on the fourth Wednesday of January, 1883,
to consider and take final act ion on the re-
port OF committee appointed March 5,
1881, to mature and report to the National
Committee plan for securing to the sever
al Congressional Districts the right to elect
their own delegates to the next National
Convention and to transact any other bust
ness that may be brought before them"
The New York Times gives the following
resume of the action taken on the ques-
tions to be disposed Of, which places the
matter intelligently before the readers
1T will be remembered that a rule was
adopted by the last Convention requiring
the National Committee to prescribe
methods or rules for the selection of dele
country within twelve months" to which
proviso was attached that ''such methods
or rules shall include and secure to the sew
eral Congressional districts of the United
States the right to elect their own delegates
to the National Convention This rule
was the outcome of the controversy over
the so-called unit rule" and the body
OF it was first proposed by eX-Gov. Bout
well, of Massachusetts, the proviso being
added on the motion of Mr. Butterworth,
of Ohio. The National Committee held
meeting on the LIST of July, 1880, at which
plans were submitted by Mr.. William E
Chandler, of New Hampshire. and Mr..
John A. Martin, of Kansas. The former
provided for four delegates at large from
each State and two delegates from each
Congressional district, to be chosen at pop
ular conventions sin such manner as the
Republicans of each State shall determine,
provided the delegates from each Congress
sional district shall be the choice of the Re-
publicans of that district The chief
feature of Mr.. Martins plan was a pro-
vision for additional State delegates in pro-
portion to the Republican vote of 1880
one for every u, 900 of such votes or a frac-
ton exceeding one-half that number. The
committee at the same time invited sugges-
lions on the subject, to be submitted prior
to Oct. Is, 1880, the time being subsequent
ly extended to Feb, 1, 1881.
The matter was taken up again by the
committee at a meeting held on the 9TH of
March, 1881, when two plans were sub
mitted, one by Messrs. Chandler and Nc
Pherson, and the other by Mr. George c.
Chambers first plan in providing for an
additional delegate at large in each State
for each Republican Senator sin the then
existing or next preceding Congress, and
an additional district delegate for each Re-
publican Representative in such Congress.
Mr.. Gorham s plan provided for number
of delegates equal to twice the number of
Senators and Representatives of each State
in Congress, and left to the Republicans in
each State, land others who will act with
them," the determination of the manner of
choosing the delegates. This disregarded
the main purpose of the instructions of the
last Convention and left the old contro-
versy open. After considerable discussion
the subject was referred to the Committee
of Five already alluded to, consisting of
Messrs. Chandler of New Hampshire
Platt of New York Forbes Of Massachu-
sets Martin, of Kansas, and Filley, of
Missouri, and further consideration was
postponed to be held ''within one year of
this date''-March s, 1881. No such meet
ing was held previous to that of last Satur-
day, and then the Committee of Five seem
to have had no new plans or suggestions to
OFFER though they had circulated an invita-
tion asking for them. The subject is there
fore left open until January next, when
definite action is promised
The points at issue relate to the district
representation and additional delegates in
proportion to the Republican vote cast. AS
to the first, the preponderating sent iment
seems to be in favor of each district choos-
ing its own Observation-Disclosures by district
conventions, as was once, before the war,
the practice in Virginla-or by the recon-
mendation OF the delegates from each dis
trict to the State Convention, for its confirm
ation,a as has been the usage since the Repub-
lican party was organized in this State. We
quote from the Times as to the other point:
The other question is one which the committee
itself will have to decide before the call for
the next Convention is made, for on it depends
the number of delegates to be chosen in each
State. Under the new apportionment there
will be 321 members in the lower house, and
if no new State is admitted there will be 76
Senators in 1884. Therefore, aside from the
question of Territorial representation, which
also remains to be settled, the delegates based
on representation in Congress would number