The herald., 1896-07-05

speech, demanded that the rule be abol-
ished. He said its effect would be to
defeat the nomination of Van Buren,
who otherwise would be chosen by
majority of from ten to fifteen. Fur
ther, he predicted as result, IL the
rule should be carried, "the dismember-
ment and breaking up of the Demo-
cratic party"
After hot debate of four hours the
rule was agreed to by a vote of 14S to 11S.
Van Buren had q considerable majority
of the votes cast, but failed to receive
the necessary two-thirds. So instead
of resembling the rule, he was allowed
to be defeated in the house of his friends.
The preservation of the rule was con-
sidered of paramount Importance. Polk
and Dallas, the compromise candidates,
forced upon the convention by the mi
nority, were elected, Notwithstanding
the gloomy picture of party dismember-
ment drawn by the eloquent Butler.
A SOUTHERN RULE.
The two-thirds rule is generally re-
garded as a political legacy of this con-
vention Of 1874. In the election of that
year there were twenty six states, and
thirteen of these-exactly half-were
southern states, the other thirteen being
north of Mason and Dixon's line. The
southern states, in which the Democratic
party had it's strongest hold, were fear
full of being outvoted in the Democratic
convention under plurality rule, and
they, therefore, enforced upon the party
in the interest Of sectional autonomy
| the rule whereby the thirteen southern
states acting collectively might have
| for the protection of their material in
| terests a practical veto power upon the
proceedings Of Democratic conventions
| and be enabled therefore to defeat any
| hostile candidate.
If the two-thirds rule be abolished at
| the approaching convention it will be
| largely by the strength of the southern
| delegates Thus time works queer
| changes.
At the convention Of 184S in Baltimore.
| the two-thirds rule was opposed, but it
| was carried by vote of 175 to 4S. In the
| convention of 1852, also held at Balti-
more, the rule having been adopted, a
motion to reconsider this action was
| laid on the table by a vote of 273 to 13.
| The convention of 1856 was held at Gin
| cinnati, and the rule was adopted by a
| comprehensive resolution readopting
| the rules Of the previous national con-
vention.
THE CONVENTION OF 1860
| Now we come to the historic conven-
ton held at Charleston in April of 1860.
| There were 303 delegates, but after a
| number of delegates, including several
| entire delegations, had withdrawn, the
membership was reduced to 241 Before
| the balloting was begun a resolution was
moved by Mr.. Howard of Tennessee, as
privileged question, that on the bal
| lots for president and president no
person should be declared nominated
who did not receive two-thirds of all
the votes the full convention was enti-
| tied to cast. The resolution was OBJ
jected to as being change of the rule
| of the convention, to-wit: 1.-TWO thirds
| of the whole number of votes given shall
be necessary to be a nomination of cam
| didates for president and president
! by this convention
| The point made was that the resolution
was not in order, the rules requiring that
| proposition to change the rule should
| lie over one day. The chairman, Hon.
| Caleb Cushing, held the resolution to
be in order, as being direction respect