Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-08-14
LES IONS OF THE KEYsER CONVEN-
TIOy.

LES IONS OF THE KEYsER CONVEN-
TION.
A political convention is the most de-
cidedly democratic institution Of a re-
publican form of government.
1t is neither recognized in the ler
scripta, nol is it regarded rs properly be-
longing to the institutions of the Gov
eminent.
1t has no laws of its own, and ae-
knowledges no authority higher than
itself. 1t is purely "peOples move
ment." Government would exist with
out them, but parties might not.
Political parties have adopted this
method of designatinga candidate upon
wi ON the entire membership Of that
party'may unite and for whom cast their
votes. This is the one object and Pur-
pose out of which the convention has
sprung.
In view of the issues arising out of the
Eeyser Convention, it is well, i'm order
10 take a Just view of the situation, to
keep these primary facts in mind-to
begin with first principles, so to
speak.
The sole mission of the delegates to
the Keyser COnvention-and to other
similar COnventions-was to nominate
a man as candidate of the party in that
district, and by all precedent, the party
is tacitly bound to support the man
named by the majority of the COnven-
ton.
There is no form, ceremony, or. parli-
amentary law, prescribed as such, for
the government of political conven-
ton. 1t is law, as we have said, unto
itself. There is no special routine or
formula necessary to give validity to
the result which the Convention may
reach, provided it is clear that the ma
jority endorsed that result.
The one acknowledged condition is
that the nominee shall he the choice of
a majority of the delegates-that fact,
and that only binds the party. If the
delegates should file into the hall APP
pointed as the place Of meeting, an
nOunce their choice, and file out again,
without any formal organization or any
regard for parliamentary methods, the
nominee thus receiving a majority Of
the votes would be as fully installed as
the candidate Of the party, and would
he as readily recognized as the candi-
date Of the party, as though the NOM
inatiOn had been reached through the
most scrupulous adherence to parlia-
mentary usage.
The people ask but one thing Of a
- rFesSnlaOly Elas,gS1Euspls,
gates represent the choice of the ma
jority of the people and it is not only
right but essential to the success of the
party that the choice Of the majority Of
the people should be the choice of the
convention.
We DO not depreeiate the value of
parliamentary rules and Observances by
political convention in arriving at a
result, but it must be admitted that the
tactics Of the PARLIAMENTARY are too
often made the means of defeating or
confusing the majority in the express
sion of their choice. But they do not
So often deceive the people. The peo-
lie look not at the observance of any
special formula but at the one fact as to
whether the choice of the majority was
fairly expressed.
In the Keyser Convention rupture
occurred and a part Of the delegates
withdrew even before vote was taken.
They attempt to justify their action up
on the ground that the Convention viO-
lated the rules of parliamentary law.
The President of the Convention, it Is
claimed, was biased in his rulings by
his desire to favor one of the candidates,
Mr.. HOGE, IS against another candi-
date, Mr.. LUCAS; that the Committees
were organized with a majority of their
members favoring Mr.. HOGE as against
reports or decisions Of these committees
were all in favor of Mr.. HOGE as
against Mr.. Lucas; and that, therefore,
rs a necessary conclusion of this state
Ofaffairs, when a vote should be taken,
a majority of the ballots would be in
favor of Mr.. HOGE as against Mr.. Lucas.
Therefore, as a matter of prudence, the
delegates who preferred Mr.. Lucas as
against Mr.. HOGE, retired in advance
Ofthat result being determined by a
vote.
But is it not quite as conclusive as the
actual vote itself, that when Conven-
ton is able to elect President who is a
friend and supporter of one of the can
didates, and to organize its committees
with majority OfthesuppOrters of that
same candidate, that majority of the
Convention is also in favor of that same
candidate? Has not the Convention, we
say, already thus indicated its choice of
candidate as clearly and conclusive as
though the formality of vote had
made it 80?
Parliamentary law may have been
violated; the rules adopted for the gov
eminent of the convention may have
been violated, but all this will not de-
stroy the force of the fact that ma
jority of the convention did it in the in
terest of their fayOrite candidate, if that
fact appears. What the people want to
know, and all the people want to know,
is, who did the majority of the dele
gates desire. They know but little and
care less about what parliamentary
usage was or was not observed or vio-
ated.
We agree with the dissenters of the
Keyser Convention that it is exssper-
ating and trying to find Oneselflaboring
in a convention against odds both as re-