Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-12
The Two-Thirds Rule.

The National Convention of the Demo-
cratic party will assemble before long
that IL, we are now in the presidential
year. and only few months distant from
the time Of the nomination OF the Demo
cratic candidate for President Of the
United States. Our confidence is strong
that the nominee Of the convention will
DO elected. Following the precedents OF
every presidential year for O long time
past the Democratic papers are already
engaged in discussing the question whether
the Democratic National Convention
should or should not adopt the two-thirds
rule for its government.
The two-thirds rule originated In the ne
cessity which compelled the slave-holding
States not to allow man hostile to their
peculiar institution to be elected presi-
dent of the United States. The southern
States in those times stood like stone
wall " against northern interference with
slavery, and a. the southern States then
cast more than one third of the electoral
votes In the whole Union, it was clearly
within their power to prevent the nomina-
ton Of any aspirant whose views upon the
slavery question, or rather upon questions
growing out OF the institution of slavery.
we're distastetul to them. The anti-slavery
men styled the northerners who were
willing to come to terms with the southern
"slavo-ocracy" "dough-faces." Butstern
necessity forced the southern Democrats
10 stand together in favor of the two
thirds rule. And their northern Demo-
al h. ma fttl ~ M RI
1861.
The Kansas-Nebrasks bill was a bill
which was passed in order, so the expecta-
ton was. to preserve the equality of the
southern with the northern States. 1t
protected. or was intended to protect,
"the rights of the South in the Terrific
RES" Alas! it wrought the destruction OF
the section il was intended to benefit and
instead of protecting the rights of the
South in the Territories, resulted in de-
stroying the rights OF all the States, North
and South, and converted Federal gov
eminent of limited powers into national
government of unlimited powers-that Is
to say, into government which Is bound
only by its own will. If ycs doubt. read
nue. laws, and the triif statutes.
xeQsseoate sa.ianss 1ssat ipse ct ier. Ceasing
the reason for the law. the law itself
ceases. This is the ground upon which it
is now proposed, as it was proposed in
1875, in 1880, in 1884. and IN 1883, If not be-
fore 1915, to do away with rule which
has been adopted by every Democratic
National Convention for the last forty
wears and longer-the two-thirds rule.
The southern States are still solid, and
feel as if they were in some degree pro-
tected by that rule. The other States are
divided into western, northwestern. Pa
oific. &C.. &C., and these several groups
of States feel as il they. too. were
interested in the preservation OF the
two-thirds rule. But the repeated
adoption Of that rule after the reason
for its use has ceased to influence mems
judgments is to be found no doubt in the
fact that it affords all sorts of minoritles
protection which they cannot otherwise
secure. For instance, il the monometal-
liats should constitute moro than one
th,rd of the members of the Democratic
National Convention OF this year, they
would DO able to prevent the nomination
of bimetal,ist for President. OF course
they could not nominate O monometallist.
The two-thirds rule operates, so to speak.
negatively. not afiirmatively. We refer to
this a. o mere illustration; but every
reader can see for himself that 1t would
not be strange if q rule first accepted for
one reason and afterwards perpetuated for
other reasons should become favorite
rule in national conventions and defy all
efforts to secure its repeal, or, rather we
ought to say its disuse. seeing that 1t has
to be sfirmatively acted upon-adopted-
by each succeeding national convention.
The facts being as We have stated them,
It Will be found no easy matter to get rid
OF the two-thirds rule in the next Demo-
cratic National Convention.