The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-03-26
AGAINST AN EVEN DIVIDE.
REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE
COMPROMISES.

; REASONS FOR OPPOSING TIL
/, COMPROMISES.
, Congressman ). VIM. Stokes Di
! don. n'o'
r EDITOR REGISTER: It goes. will
| Out saying that the election OF del,
, gates to the Constitutional Conventio
, tsthe most vital and delicate problei
I lifely to demand an answer OF th
pfesent or any succeeding generatio
i 1nour State. IL is equally plain ths
, tfe answer to the problem, 90 be sati
factory, must be projected along line
ttht will hold our State abreast {
, TIP nineteenth century civilization an
pfpgress and such an answer must b
formulated by the whole white people
This is but another way of saying tina
the work OF the Constitution should b
Done in non-factional spirit. Thu
Pr nearly all ofus may agree withou
4Hculty. The trouble begins whe
an effort Is made to sottle upon tn
terms and conditions upon which dis
cordant factions may be unified in thi
work.
There is practically but one detinit
If'oPoot'ion ooiofo VIC peoplc loOkln
TO that end-that promulgated by Sen
pator Tillman and several Reform lead
ers In conference with Mr.. Barnwel
| and several other Conservative leaders
! shall offer some objections to tha
features of their plan, which provide
Tor equal division OF representation be
tween the factions in electing dele
gates. shall state these objection,
frankly and plainly; but with no in
tention to impugn the motives of the
parties to the compact. These objec
tions seem to me to be absolutely fata
TO the scheme proposed-unless, indeed
we are ready to throw principle to the
winds and turn our backs upon funda.
mental contentious of the Reform fac.
tf55a si5aa.1 during dt.f ii.g the past decade.
l. In the first place, then, tho propo-
sitlon Is irrational and contradictory
in Its terms. 1t processes to secure a
non-factional convention, and yet it
starts out by making division of dele
gates between the factions. In other
al lines by drawing these lines more
distinctly, if possible, than they have
ever been drawn before-in that il not
only fixes, metes and bounds for each,
but reduces them to exact terms on
figures before the people have spoken
Can anything be moro irrational than
this? Can any proposition be moro
self-contradictOry? And yet that is
the palpable absurdity that the people
of the State are asked to ratify.
2. In the second place, the ratio OF
representation proposed violates fun
damental principle OF entative
democracy. After recognizing aud
emphasizing the factional lines-pre-
ctsely what 1t set out to eliminate it
provides for an equal division of repre-
sentation between those factions which
are notoriously unequal. 1t proposes
to give one-third of the people inter-
rested equal influence and equal voice
with the other two.thirds.
Such a proposition contravenes every
principle OF representative democracy,
and is without precent in the history
cratic lines. The most superficial
student Of political science will tell you
that such precedent can be found, as
a deliberate scheme, nowhere save in
q clear-cut, undisguised aristocracy.
Upon no hypothesis can u minority of
the people be deliberately accorded
more than their proportional share of
representation, save that that minority
possesses superior claims to represen-
tative functions. Are we prepared to
admit this ? Are tho Reformers OF all
people prepared to admit this? The
very utmost that could be claimed or
conceded, consistently with representa-
tive Democracy, would be representa-
tion for each faction in proportion to
Its relative strength. Under Demo,
cratic methods a majority can never be
justified in shirking any of its proper
oh Nf
can mover be justified in de.
or desiring moro representa-
lion than its just and proportional
share. Men do not usually seek to as
sumo any responsibility without some
expected advantage to accrue. They
never voluntarily assume more respon-
sibility than properly attaches to them,
without correspondingly enhanced ad-
vantages which they suppose to DO in
reach. These statements of principle
are absolutely irrefutable. They are
1t is amazing in view OF
these plain prirciples to hear men Sc
riously argue that this is Il special case,
hat the work OF this convention is diff
|erent from ordinary Legislative work
and from ordinary office-holding-as
though this very factdid not enhance
,he necessity for closer clinging to
principles We are told
with apparent seriousness, that in an.
ordinary Legislative body, or in the
OF offices, under Demo-
cratic government, it would be proper
20 divide representation, and the con-
,equent responsibility, in proportion to
'elative strength but In this case,
" here the ground work for future leg
station is to be laid, that principle
should be set aside-that factiOnal lines
must be eliminated by au equal divis-
on between unequal factions. Can it
De possible that any sano man who Is
1onest with himself, and frank with
,he public, will pretend that an equal
division is any less distinct division
han proportional division? Will
my one pretend that the way to elimi-
nate factioDal lines in a-deliberative
body Ia to reduce the inequality be-
,ween their forces, and MAKE the con-
,rol turn upon a very narrow margin
II single vote? [ say reduce
The inequality between the factional
'orces because 1t is exceedingly impro-
oable, II not utterly impossible. to Sc
cure absolnte equality. On which sido
The narrow majority will stand, the
lay after the election alone can reveal.
3. In the third place, the proposi-
tion for an equal division or any pre-
concerted division, to be made effective
and certain, must necessarily event
late In rules for the primary ordered
by the State Democratic committee,
that will curtail the freedom of that
primary, or else in an utter abandon
ment OF the primary for some sort of
convention. Now, TX there was one
thing more than another that stimu-
Il. x.SlA - Al