The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1882-08-19
Lessons Of the Ekevser Con.
ycnfiOn.

decidedly democratic institution Oh
a republican form of government.
1t is neither recognized in the lea
scripta, nor is itre9arded as properly
belonging to the institutions Of the
Government.
1t has no laws of its own, and ac-
knowledgcs no authority higher than
itself 1t is purely peoples
movement" Government would ex-
list without them, but parties might
not.
Political parties have adopted this
method of designating candidate
upon whom the entire membership of
that party may unite and for whom
cast their votes. This is the one OBJ
ject and purpose out of which the
convention has sprung.
In view of the issues arising out of
the Keyser Convention,i it is well,in or
der to take a just view of the situa-
ton, 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 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 Convcntihn.
There is no form, ceremony, or
parliamentary law, prescribed as
such, for the government of politi-
cal convention. 1t is a law, as we
have said, unto itself. There is no
special routine formula necessary to
give validity to the result which the
Convention may reach, provided it
is clear that the majority endorsed
that result.
The one acknowledged condition
is that the nominee shall be the
choice of a majority of the delegates
that fact, and that only binds the
party. If the delegates should file
into the hall appointed as the place
of meeting, announce their choice,
and file out again, without any formal
organization or any regard for parli-
amentary methods, the nominee thus
receiving a majority of the votes
would be as fully installed as the
candidate of the party, as though the
nomination had been reached through
the most scrupulous adherence to
parliamentary usage.
The people ask but one thing of a
political convention: "Who was the
choice of the Majority
Presumably the majority of the
delegates represent the choice of the
majority of the people and it is not
only right but essential to the sue
cess Of the party that the choice of
the majority of the people should be
the choice of the convention.
We do not depreciate the value oil
parliamentary rules and observancea
by political convention in arriving
at result, but it must be admitted
that the tactics of the parlimenta rian
are too often made the means of de
feating or confusing the majority in
the expression of their choice. But
they do not so often deceive the PEG
pie. The people look not at the
observance of any special formula
but at the one fact as to whether the
choice of the majority was fairly ex
pressed.
In the Keyser Convention rupture
occurred and part of the delegates
withdrew even before a vote wa:
taken. They attempt to justify thei
action upon the ground that thu
Convention violated the rules of par
liamentary law. The President o
the Convention, it is claimed, wa'
biased in his rulings by his desire tt
favor one of the candidates, Mr.
Hoge, as against another candidate
Mr.. Lucas; that the Committee
were organized with a majority O
their members favoring Mr.. Hoge as
against Mr.. Lucas; and that the re
ports or decisions of these commit
tees were all in favor of Mr. Hoge a
against Mr.. Lucas; and that, there
fore, as necessary conclusion o
this state of affairs, when vot
should be taken a majority of tn
ballots would be in favor of Mr.. Hog
as against Mr.. Lucas. Therefore
as matter ofprudence, the delegate
who preferred Mr.. Lucas as agains
Mr.. Hoge, retired in advance 0
that result being determined by
vote.
But is it not quite as conclusive a
the actual vote itself, that when
Convention is able to elect Presi
dent who is friend and supporte
Of one of the candidates, and to OIL
ganize it's committees with a ma
jority of the supporters of tina
same candidate, that a majorit
of the Convention is also in favor G
that same candidate? Has not tn
Convention, we say, already thu
indicated its choice of candidat
as clearly and conclusive as thong
the formality of vote had mad
: it so.
Parliamentary law may have bee
violated; the rules adopted for til
government of the convention ma
have been violated, but all this wi
not destroy the force of the fact ths
a majority of the convention did
in the interest of their favOrite cal