The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-05-28

The Washington Post recently contained
an article which deals with the question
OF the unit rule. 1T quotes a "promi-
nent delegate" 10 the last National Demo-
cratic Convention. who states that the
nomination Of Mr.. Cleveland I'm 1892 was
due 20 the unit rule. However this may
be. it was not from any such action
taken by the delegates from Virginia.
The first National Democratic Conven-
ton assembled in Baltimore in March. 49,
and renominated Andrew Jackson. ana
substituted Van Buren. of New York.
for Henry Clay. who had served as Vice
President under Jackson's former admin
istration.
At this convention it was agreed that
each delegation should select a sgokes-
man. who, when his State was called,
should cast its vote. and by another rcso-
luton each State was given vote
equal to its vote in the electoral college.
1t was almost invariably the case IN the
early conventions that each State dele
CATION came with instructions 10 support
a certain candidate. and therefore there
was but little If any occasion for any
rule to conhne the action OF individual
delegates.
In Baltimore. on May %. ISIS, the Demo
Gratis nominated Lewis Cass. or Michigan,
and W. o. Butler Of Kentucky. At this
convention. the following resolution was
adopted:
question which may arise in the pro-
ceedings OF this convention. the vote shall
be taken by States. at the request Of
any one State. each State 10 be entitled
10 the number Of votes To which
such State is entitled tn the electoral
college. without regard 10 the number or
delegates in attendance. the manner In
which said vote is 10 De cast TO be de-
clded 10y the delegation OF each state for
itself
This rule continued in all OF the Demo-
cratic conventions from 1SiS to 1860. by
the simple adoption Of The rules OF the
preceding convention.
Some Of the advocates OF the unit rule
now claim this as a precedent for Demo
cratic procedure. but. while a close con-
struction OF the rule itself might be con-
sidercd in the light OF debarring the in
diyidual expression OF delegates. it cannot
be considered that the National Conven-
ton intended 20 give 10 the majority in
each delegation present the authority or
practically instructing the delegates as
their State convention might have done.
and upon tho floor OF a national convcn-
tion not only suhc the voice OF a minority
Of the delegates. but bind aud deliver
them to the cause OF the majority.
The rule was intended TO be simply
directory with a view OF permitting the
majority Of each State delegation 70 de-
termine how their vote should be divided
as expressing the views OF the individual
members. This view OF II is fully and
completely sustained In the record or the
succeeding conventions for We hnd IN an
Of them d division IN the vote OF States
upon a number Of questions. as well as
in the banoting for presidential and vice
presidential candidates. and 10 would be
manifsstly unfair 10 ascrihe this 10 the
moderation Of the maiorities rather than
10 the true and rightful intent OF the
rule.
In the memorable convention held IN
Charleston on April %. 1860 which re-
suited in a split in the Democratic party
and the election OF Lincoln and Hamiln
the rule Of 1915 was hrst ADOPTED but a
question arising. which demanded It's con-
struction. the following rule was adopted
THAT ia any State which has not pro-
vide or directed by it's State Convention
s)w It's vote NAY be given. the conYep-