National Republican., 1883-01-19
cJhcerning "notten Boroughs.r

1t was remarked at the recent meeting of
the republican national committee that " the
question of success or defeat in tho next pres
idcntial election depended on whether the ma
tional republican convention would assemble
under the old rotten borough system or
whether that system should be reformed"
The meaning of this remark was evidenced
by the additional words of the speaker,
when he said that 9" the trouble of al
lowing democratic localities to influence
republican nominations had long been
realized, and had been growing" These
words admit of but one construction, and
that is that the states which went demo-
cratic in 1850 are so far as republicanism is
concerned "rotten boroughs," that equal rep
rescntation for those states is rotten borough
system, and that republican nominations
made under their influence !. G., by their aid
must inevitably be defeated. As the so-callcd
"rotten- borough system" was adopted by the
national committee by vote of % to 10, it
may be well to see how il has operated In the
recent past The usually well Informed
member Of the committee who took so
luSuDIlOuS Wow VI lHc cHCCu VI HllOWlng
tho republicans from democratic states to
be represented equally with their brethren
elsewhere. might have spared himself some
anxiety if lie had taken even hasty
look at the balloting in the last ma
tional convention of the party. The as
serton has been so persistently made
that the delegates from the democratic states
were nearly all on one side, and those from
the republican states nearly all on the other
side, at the Chicago convention of 1SS0-that
it has become a sort of stage property, to he
brought in whenever u particular scene Is
being enacted on the political stage. But
for all that the assertion is untrue. The
states which gave their electoral votes
to Hancock in November, 1850, We're
represented in the national convention
by three hundred and eleven delegates,
and the territories and this district, which
have no electoral votes, were represented by
eighteen delegates being total Of three hum
drcd and twenty mine delegates from "rotton
borough5." OF these the first ballot shows
that GRANT received 1Sl, tho remaining one
hundred and iorty-eight being thus distrib-
utcd BLAINE, 90; SHERMAN, az; WASH
BURN, 4, and EDMUNDs, !. Gen. GRANT re-
ccivcd but sixteen more than one half of all
the Delegates from the "rottcn boroughs"
On the final ballot, which nominated
GARFIELD, these three hundred and
twcnty-nine votes, which it is so often
assumed were all on one side, were
then d stributed. GRANT 176, all others 153,
thus divided; BLAINE 30, SHERMAN 3,
GARFIELD ll5, Thus it will DO seen
that If twelve more delegates from
"rotten boroughs" had voted with "the
majority at Chicago" that side would have
had majority of them. Had the votes,
TO which objection is now made, been with
held from BLAINE, GARFIELD and SHERMAN
ON the decisive ballot, tho combined votes of
those candidates would have been but 206 in
q convention in which $50 were required
to make majority. Gen. GARFIELD's vote
was 800, only ten more than enough. Of
these ll5 were from the "rotten borughs.1
Was this in the mind of the committeeman
who complained Of Vthe trouble of allowing
democratic localities to influence republican
nominations" When a party leader an.
nounces that the question of success or defeat
Of the party at the next presidential election
depends on whether the national republican
convention shall Ensemble under the old
rotton borough SYSTEM" and when the sys.
tenn thus characterized is adopted, it becomes