New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-12
REPRESENTATION IN CONVENTIONS.
JOHN A. MARTINS PLAN TO BE Presented 10 THE

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.
lBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSEI
WASHINGTON. Jan. 1l.-1here will be, appar-
entity no majority report irou the sub committee on
the superintendent of delegates TO the next National
Republican Convention when the National Com
mttee meets here next Wednesday. The plan
which Mr.. Chandler Will present, and in which il is
understood John NJ. Forbes. OF Massachusetts, will
concur was stated in these dispatches last week.
John A. Martin. of Kansas. adberes to the plan he
proposed two years ago. Nothing has been heard
OH the subject from Chauncey /. FlIey and Thomas
c. Platt, the remaining members of the snb-com-
mittee, except letter FROM Filley TO Secretary
Chandler which seems to admit that the Gues ION
of district representation is no longer open one,
but gives no views on the various plans.
Mr. Martin has to Washington to attend
che meeting OF the managers of the Volunteer Sol
diers' Home, and gave TRIBUNE correspondent an
interesting statement OF his views. MIR. Martin is
the editor of The AtchisOn Champion, has been
member of the National Committee since 1863, and
has voted against the anti rule IN every convention
in which the question has been raised. His plan
gives each State two delegates at large and each
Congressional District one delegate. and then to
saoh State one delegate for every $4,000 Republic
can votes cast for President in 1880. He said:
alt has seemed to me that the fault in our con-
ventiou system has not been much the lack of
fesentation was not based upon the Republican
vote but upon total population. That gave Dem
ocratie States an undue represen tation At Chi
cagv Kansas with reliable Republican majority
of 10000, did not have so large representation as
Soutn Carolina. and Ohio NO moie tDan Kentucky.
i woulo have preferred in place of this sytem one
giving repret ntaton solely the basis of the Repub
lican vote, but have matured my plan as a cornpro-
mise on which all may meet The only objection
urged to it is that it Derpetuates State represents
tiou. / contend that State representation has not
been the fault of our conventions. At Chicago the
adoption of the resolution affirming the right OF the
individual delegate to vote as he CHEESE made
change of very few ties; in Kentucky, 10 In
New-York, 26 in Pennsylvania, Is in Illinois and
a in Kansas; but il the representation mad been
based on Republican votes, IL would have cuf down
the vote of q number of Democratic States and in
creased that of a number of Republican States
If the Chicago Convention had been based on my
plan twenty States would have gained G6 votes and
ten States would have lost 20 votes leaving eight
States unchanged.
After that Convention / entered into CORE
spondence with every Republican State Committee
In the Union aud found that in twenty three States
the representation In State Conventions is based
upon the Re publican vote In three four the rep
resentation is based upon a compromise plan some
what like mine, and in the remainder the old sys-
tenn based on population still obtains, except in
Connecticut where the representation is by towns.
There Is ua ,enably a steady drift in the party
throughout the aole UuIon toward REPRESENTATION
In conventions based upon the party vote. have
maze computation to show how many voters
each delegate in the Chicago Convention r'pre-
scented. and they ranged all TIE way from l7SO in
1852 IN Kansas. II the Chicago Convention had
been arranged on my plan. the range would bave
great many States, inclu ling New-York."
Mr.. Martin was asked whether he had considered
the objection made to his plan that IL might pat
number of State delegates lie said :" Yes; but
If you win go over the votes in the Chicago Conven-
ton yon will that the fault, if there was ANY
MISREPRESENTATION of public sentiment, not that
the States elected delegates but that States had |
reseutation utterly out OF proportion to their
Republican vote. The machine was created IL |
favor of Grant and 1t was strongest Ia the sou hern
De.uocratic States. 1t would have been much less |
been based on the Republican vote. All the plans
proposed but mine are unjust to the growing States
ponalsfIon except each ten years Three National |
Conventions viii he held before another apportion-
nent is made. Under my plau representation |
would steadily change with increase OF population
and increase OF Republican votes. the present |
system. which does much injustice now. will do
still moro in 1888. when the western states nave
hau four years mole Of growth. .
There Is every indication OF q harmonious consid-
Grafton of the question in the committee II there
II ig In the fact that several Stalwart members OF
tho committee, like General Logan and Assistant /
Secretary New. have oppressed preference for the
nresent systen az. which gives no additional repre-
sentatio1 to Republican districts. None OF the
pl1ns formulated so Tar seem TO have taken into |
Account the congressman at Large in the various
States who must be included IL the States are 10 DO
represented in proportion 10 their strength In
Congress-
THE MICHIGAN sENAToRsHIP.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11.-PrySte dispatches re-