Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-27
rninstrncted Delegates.


The sober second thought of the peo-
pie will. we trust. lead them TO the con-
clusion that the delegates 10 the Demo-
cratic National Convention ought not TO
be instructed to vote for a particular per
son as the nominee of the party for Presl-
dent of the United States. II II would be
becoming and right TO instruct them to
vote for SMITH, il would be becoming ana
right TO instruct them TO vote against
JoSgs. This seems TO us TO be self-evi-
dent proposition, seeing that instructions
10 vote for SMITH are IN effect instructions
10 vote against JoNEs. Thus, for example,
the Massachusetts, delegates would be In
structed TO vote against. Vlrginia's favor
lite aspirant. and Virginia's delegates would
be instructed TO vote against the aspirant
favored by Massachusetts,. Confusion
worse COMPOUNDED would prevail IN
a national convention composed OF dele
gates instructed to vote against the man
preferred by all or many of the other
States. We are glad to see expressed IN
the Charlottesville Chronicle the opinion
that 1.-The sentiment Is fast becoming pre-
valent among Democrats that We should
send unlnstructed delegations to the Chi
cago convention" That paper finds in
Mr.. CLEyELASD's Chattanooga letter a
warning to his friends and the Democratic
party against hasty action and the su-
premacy of enthusiasm over calm
Judgment" "If he had said so IN 80
many words he could not have more
plainly conveyed the impression that in
his opinion the delegates should be un-
trammelled and the convention dehbera-
tive body"
The common impression seems TO be
that in the majority of the States which
have already held State conventions the
delegates were instructed to vote for one
or another of the several aspirants. But
this is misapp-ehension of the facts, we
believe. New York, Rhode Island, and
Kansas are the only States which have up
10 this time closed the mouths and tied
the hands Of their delegates. Several other
States have declared for the nomination
OF CLEVELAND, but declined to interfere
with their delegates in the performance OF
the important duty of choosing standard
bearer for the whole Democratic party OF
the United States. The States which have
already held conventions are. naming them
in alphabetical order, Indiana. Kansao,
Massachusetts,, Minnesota, Nebraska. New
York. Oregon. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
and Wyoming. Rhode Island and Kansas
Instructed their delegates to cast their 2s
votes for CLEVELAND. New York instructed,
her delegates TO cast their 70 votes for
HILL. These three States have together
inst 100 delegates. In Minnesota and
Oregon CLEVELAND was formally endorsed,
as he was in the platform adopted in Penn
sylvania and Massachusetts. Indiana's
action has never appeared clear to us.
Senator VOORHEES, says that her delegates
are almost two 10 one for GRAY. Nor did
Nebraska and Wyoming instruct for
CLEVELAND, as we understand the matter.
Ii NAV be set down that the candidate
who is foremost under such circumstances
as those which now surround the Demo-
cratic party is not at all apt TO gain
strength IN the national convention after
the first or second ballot. The two-thirds
rule will prevent hasty, unconsidered
nomination. The dark horses will not be
put upon the track until after the leading
aspirant has shown that his superior
strength is not equal TO the strength de-
manded In a nominee.
To instruct all the delegates would be to
inform everybody in advance how to pro-
coed in order to secure the nomination for
the foremost aspirant If he should have
even bare majority. Ii would be 10 offer
Q most inviting temptation TO the friends
of any candidate who might have secured
a majority of the votes In the national con-
vention TO dispense with the two-thiTds
rule and permit a candidate to DO nomi-
mated for the Democratic party 10y States
which will not be able to cast one electoral
vote for him. To be sure this would be
the madness OF the MOON" but 1t Is just
the kind Of madness which would be like
ly to obtain amongst 451 delegates de-
voted to the fortunes of particular
individual and possessed of the fact that
they could command majority vote for
their favorite. Whoever has attended
Democratic national conventions must
have been impressed with the fact that
the members have always been disinclined
to hear one word said IN favor of noIni-
mating a candidate by majority vote.
But this Discrimination may disappear I'M
der the operation of the practice OF in
structing delegates. and the work OF
nominating q candidate may be left to
majority composed almost wholly of Re-
publican States.
Need we say that defeat might follow the
domination of candidate by such INA
chine methods ~.
Tho Aoarrh{cfc