The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-02-08
Is the Convention Question settled.

l. the Convention Question settled:
In an editorial article the other day the
Atlanta Constitution said. There viii be
but one convention this year" Is. then.
the matter settled2 II so. why does she
Constitution continue 10 discuss IL? There
is no use in discussing a matter that is
decided We have no information such
as the Constitution claims TO have. There
IS only one source OF such positive lufor-
nation. and that is the state committee.
lave the members Of that committee
been polIed. and has it been foVnd THAI
a majority OF them viii vote TO hold only
one convention? II that is the case why
not Let the fact be known?
We are not prepared TO question the
Constitutions statement, but before ac-
cepting it we should like TO know if the
Constitution is positive that it is correct.
What makes US think that the Consu-
than a fact is that il is made in an edI-
torial article in which arguments are adj
vanced in behalf of only one convention.
In that article the Constitution says:
The real objection TO one convention is
kept as much under cover as possible"
Does not the Constitution mean that the
real purpose Of holding one convention is
kept as much as possible under cover?
The fact must not be overlooked that
those who are opposing the one conven-
ton movement are opposing a change.
while those urging the holding of only
Heretofore two conventions in presiden-
tial years have been found 10 answer ad-
mirably. Even those who are now OPP
posing two conventions have not done
so heretofore. In previous presidential
years they have not said that full ex-
preston of the sentiments of the democ-
racy could not be had in two conventions.
They were satisfied that with two con-
ventions full and satisfactory express
sion of the views of the democratic vot-
ers could be had or else they would have
demanded the holding Of only one con-
vention. That being the case. why do
they think fair expression of democratic
sentiment cannot be had this year if two
conventions are held? They must either
declare it to be their belief that hereto
fore there has not been a fair express
sion of the democratic WILL and that
they did not object. although knowing
there was not fair expression, or else
they must admit that there are reasons
for holding only one convention this year
that did not exist In previous years.
We are inclined to the belief that they
have reasons for only one convention this
year that they never had before. and the
ground of our belief is that they never
before protested against two conventions.
Now. what are the reasons? Has the
Constitution stated them fully and frank
ly? Has 1t not kept the real reasons "as
much under cover as possible?'
The real reasons, the reasons that we
assume have been kept under cover as
much as possible" must be remarkably
strong ones, as they involve the posi-
bility of putting the state democracy in
opposition to the national democracy on
the silver question, a condition of affairs
that would likely disrupt the democratic
party in this state. Is it not a fact that
the real reason of those who urge the
changing of the custom of holding two
conventions in presidential years, which
has prevailed for thirty years, and of
holding only one convention this year
is the belief that the one convention plan
offers more opportunity for committing
the democracy of the state to the free
coinage of silver? Let the silverites an
swer.