New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-08-22
AN UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRACY

"
The Democratic managers OF this state are
indirectly taken to task by one OF the leaolhg
Democratic organs 1.-THE Rochester union'
for their persistent neglect to provide Tor ade-
ouote and Just representation IN DemocraVic
State Conventions. One of these bodies whlch
ora clothed with important functions contains
on,v 3s4 delegates, three for each one OF the
'Assombly Districts. all the districts being
rloced on an equal footing, the small ones
having the same representation as the large
onoo Tho result is. as "The Union points
ont that LOO Democrats in st. Lawrence
County district count for as much IN con-
vention as the II, 900 Democrats in one OF the
Monroe districts. 1t is not to be wondered az
in view of such figures that 1.-The Union
maintains that the "New-YOrk Democratic
State Conventions are not representative or
the Democratic constituency OF the state III
any legitimate sense Of the term
The Democracy of New-York, like the De-
r,ocracv Of the Nation, never gets on so well
os when it follows where the Republicans lead
In the matter of representation III o'a'c Ooh-
vcntions the New-Yorl Republicans nave SET
IN example which their opponents nave Only
10 profit by in order TO bring peace 10 'iiS
dissatisfied Democratic organ, ana the many
for whom it doubtless speaks. Inc hepuo-
Iicon State Committee Of 1885, acting under
tho instructions of Republican State Con-
vontion adopted the following resolution
:. Resolved, That the representation OF dele
oates to this coming State Convention DC one
for every Assembly District and one Tor every
900 Republican votes or fractlohai part
tboroof exceeding 800 cast at the last general
election for electors for President and VICE
prosidontu The result of the adoption OF THIS
resolution was to provide for convention Oh
COZ delegates, while the convention OF the
wear preyious had contained only 497. No CON
vention was held in 1856. OF the conventions
of 1ss7lSs each contained G93 delegates, but
the representation was increased year later
under the Presidential vote of 1855, SO that
the convention of 1889 was the largest ever
held by either of the great parties IN this state
containing ~ delegates. The Democratic
state Convention of 1880 was not hall as
large as the Republican, since 1t contained
only 3Si delegates.
Why do David b. ,IIill, Edward Murphy
ir. and the other Democrats who are ire
bosses of the political organization with whlch
they are connected neglect Or refuse TO make
the Democratic State Conventions truly repre-
sentative? Why do they insist that their
party, which polled ovor half a million OF votes
At the last general election, shall continue to
he represented from year to year by three
men and no more, from each Assembly Dis
trict? Surely if they desired that the CON
yentions should be as truly representative as
possible they would provide for their enlarge
ment. The explanation would seem to be tia'
such men as Hill and Murphy look upon
Democratic convention merely as device Tor
registering their own Will or the will OF the
machine Accordingly, they do not propose
if they can help it that convention shall De
80 large that they cannot conveniently control
il. II is doubtful, therefore, if the relief which
1.-The Union" desires will be granted until the
Democracy changes its leaders.