Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-12-13
THE REPUBLICANS
Preparing for the Next National Con-
yenfiOu-The Question of the
Strength OF
The Several Delegations q Very Vex'
ing One for the National Conn
mittee.

WAsHINGToN, December 1.-THE princi-
| pal work of The January meeting OF the Re
publican National Committee will be 10
decide upon the method of appointing dele
| gates 10 the next National Convention. There
| Will be no meeting before January of the
subcommittee having the subject in charge,
but there seems to be good reason to hope
that ii will be presented TO the full commit
| tee in such shape as 10 make prompt de-
cision easy.
VIM. E. Chandler, the only member OF the
sub cournittea resident in Washington, sent
out a few days ago letter 10 his colleagues,
| Messrs. Thomas G. Plat, John n. Forbes,
john A. Martin and ChsHncey l. Filley,
| giving his views on the various plans pro-
posed, and asking whether there should be a
meeting of the subcommittee. The replies
show none is thought necessary.
In his letter Mr. Chandler states that he
favors the plan submitted by himself and
Mr.. Mcpherson to the National Committee.
This provides for four delegates at large
from each State and two delegates from each
congressional district, and an additional dele
gate at large for each Republican senator in
the then existing or next preceding Congress,
and additional delegate for each Republic
can representative in such Congress, "all TO
be chosen al popular conventions in such
manner the Republicans of each State
may determine, provided the delegates from
each congressional district shall be he choice
OF the Republicans of that district in cou-
vention held within the district for that
purpose"
Mr.. Chandler says ne deems ii best that the
first phrase should be stricken out, as ii
would be unwise TO compel the holding of
State convention TO elect four, five or six del
egates at large; also TO require separate 10.
cal conventions. He states that he doesn't
favor Mr.. Martins plan; that it isn't con-
sistent with district representation. This
plan was TO have four delegates al large from
each State, and one delegate from each Con-
gressiona District, aud give 10 each State as
an addition to delegates at large, one dele
gate for every 1900 Republican votes cast
for President in 1880, or fraction over one
half of that number. Mr.. Chandler ex-
presses the positive opinion that all addi-
tionsl delegates Should be awarded in pro-
portion to Republican senators and represen-
tatIves in congress.
John NJ. Forbes, of Massachusetts,, in
replying TO Mr. Chandler's letter, proposes
a plan, )me details of which the latter is
disposed to favor. The Forbes plan pro-
vides for two delegates at large from each
State and one delegate from each congress
slonal district, &c delegate at large for each
Republican senator, and an additional dis
trlct delegate for each Republican repre-
sentative In existing Congress, all to be
chosen at popular conventions in such man
ner as the Republicans Of each district or
Stale may det' rhine, provided the delegates
from each congressional district shall be the
choice OF the Republicans of the district
The proposed rule leaves it optionsl whether
The district delegates shall be chosen in con-
vention at home, or by delegates to the State
convention, organiZ ng separately and act
log IN separate meetings at the place where
the general convention meets. All conven-
tions, State and local, must be held enc month
ot fore the National Convention and notice
to be given for not less than ten days nor
more than forty days in State or district
papers as the case may be. Mr.. Forbes's
idea is evidently TO have sma all convention,
as the body under this apportionment would
not be much more than half az large as un-
der the plan originally proposed By Messrs.
Chandler and McPhersoD, the latter plan
bringing the number OF delegates, under the
new congressional apporiionment, up TO
about one thousand, against 700 in the
last convention. Eu, Mr. Forbes says in his
last letter that he is not disposed 10 insist
uSon a reduction of the numbers if the COM
mittee will meet his views in putting safe
guards around district representation. Ii
ought be added there is no indication thus
far OF serious struggle over this question
ia the committee. The order adopted by the
Chicago convention distinctly stated that
the rules to be Fl FAMED by the committee for
the selection of delegates Should include
and secure to the several congressional dis
tricts in the United States the right to elect
their own delegates 10 the National ConSen-
ton"
This rule binds the committee 10 provide
methods for district representation-not TO
decide whether there shall be district repre-
sentation. The strongest friends of district
REP reseEtatiou here believe that is so clear,
and the right OF the National Convention 10
legislae on such a matter is so we'll estsb-
lished, that the National Committee will
have little difficulty in reaching a sa'isfac-
tory conclusion.