The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-07-27
WHO is THE "LAWGIVERos

% 1dT as We can gather from
the somewhat incoherent COM
ments of the New Ulm News
on the position taken by the
G o b e, Its central thought is that
a national convention of a party. is
the supreme iawgiver of the party
and when 1t has spoken all members
must bow submissive heads, regard
less Of what 1t commands them to do.
We infer. this from its claim that the
convention was regularly chosen, pur-
suant to the call of a regular commit
tee. and proceeded to adopt a platform
and select candidates, and from its
clinching question:. by what right
does 1t (the G TO b e. usurp the pre-
negatives Of a national convention and
become the lawgiver Of the party?"
We might reply that it was by virtue
of the same right that the editor Of
the News has long exercised of 'lSick-
ing against his state conventions and
Its party organization, only that would
be sort Of tit-for-tat argument that
dOCS uot OSul the OCcdS1OH.
The Clio b e does not assume to be
the lawgiver of the party nor does it
admit that a national convention is
the lawgiver. Parties do not find the
breath of their lives in national con-
Ventions. They get it from the princi-
pies Of government which they
advocate. Conventions are supposed
to be formed and held for the purpose
of uniting in one body all those who
hold those principles as being essen
tial to the common welfare. Clearly
then, convention cannot bind the
members Of a party by declaring that
other and opposite principles shall be
the base of the policies of the party
1t then violates the very law of it's
existence and makes positive betrayal
of the members Of its party. Suppose,
for Illustration, that the Chicago con-
vention had declared in favor Of pro-
lection, does the News maintain that
all Democrats would have been
obliged to accept that principle
Of government? If the editor
Of the News was soldier in
1864, when Democratic national con-
vention declared the war a failure,
did he throw up his commission, if he
held one, and go home? Suppose that
all the Democrats who were in the
army had regarded that convention as
their lawgiver, would we have unit
ed country today? Fortunately the
war Democrats felt that their conven-
ton was not their 1awgiver into whose
custody they had surrendered their
judgments and convictions. Again,
back in. the .fifties. when the Wing
party In national convention swal-
lowed the Fugitive Slave act, the
great body of Wings refused to accept
its decision as the law of their politi-
cal action.
TIE G 10 b e does not set itself up as
a lawgiver of the party. 1t believes
that the laws of the Democratic party
are superior to- conventions, or indi-
press principles Of government that
are eternal. 1t is because the Chicago
convention adopted principles and put
forth policies that are violative of
those laws that the G b refuses to
recognize it's authority and remains
true to the law and the gospel of De-
mocracy. If Democrats think other
wise; if they bow their heads in sub
mission to a national or any other
convention and accept It's dictation as
impeccable, we regret it for their
sakes and for that of the principles of
Democracy; but, because they do, 1t
is no reason why we should. and. on
the other hand, there is every reason
why there should remain some who
are loyal and true, when error is
sweeping men off their feet.