Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-04-20
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION
1t Will b an Extremely Interesting Meet
ing for tho Democrats.
The Discussion of the Desfrnbflfty of
Changing the TNyo-Thirds
Requirement.

Information is constantly cropping Out
goirg to show that the Chicago convention
is 10 De the most interesting political meet.
ing In the whole recent history of the dem.
ocrauc party. There has been such a razzle.
dezzle under Mr.. Cleveland's leadership
SO many new points have come up, and sc
many CID points have disappeared-that the
oid leadership is puzzling sorey over a
somewhat famous inquiry. 1t is earnestly
desirous OF knowing just where the party
Is at And in order that the question NAV
De thoroughly solved, old principles and old
precedents are booked for a pretty frank
and vigorous discussion
The Two-Thirds Rule.
There is good deal of talk just now
about the rule requiring a two-thirds vote
in the convention for the nomination of the
presidential candidate. Why should not a
majority vote suffice? The platform NAV
be adopted by n majority vote Is not the
platform as important the candidate ?
Does 1t not bind both the party and the
candldate! TO many men this difference
made between the platform and the candi-
cate seems Illogical They are opposed to
any difference at all, holding that, in th.,
democratic party particularly, a majority
vote fairly obtained should always prevail
The party's shibboleth is the majority rules
Aho'S II originated.
Inquiry into the matter shows that the
adoption of this two-thrds rule had its
root in a personal controversy which
sprang up in the democratic convention OF
1852, when Franklin Pierce was nominated,
The proposition came from the south. II
served In that convention the purpose for
which 1t was brought forward, and 1t has
ever since prevailed. But, as is now in
sisted, should not a rule which represents
in Its origin only the personal contro-
ersies of over forty years ago be abro-
gated for one more in harmony with these
new times and conditions? What good
purpose it is asked, is served by putting
IN this manner the candidate above the
platform? Only one vote over one-half of
the convention Is demanded to guarantee
the very principles upon which the party
stands: but the candidate must show two
tnlrds OF the convention his sponsors
1t is admitted of course that the man who
can command two-thirds of a convention
Is, In one sense, and as respecting the con-
Eention itself, stronger than the man who
IS able to command only a bare majority.
But why demand this? Is not as respects
the campaign before the people, the candi-
date with a majority of the convention at
his back good enough for the platform
adopted by no greater show of strength?
Discussing u Change.
1t has not been decided as yet to try and
change this rule at Chicago. Some very
prominent democrats are in favor of a
change, and the matter is now Under dis
cussion. The procedure If decided upon
will probably take the form Of a resol;l-
ton. which would be in order at the very
outset. The convention will be called
upon to adopt rules for it's guidance when
permanently organized, and it will be COM
petent when these rules are proposed to
move to omit or to strike out the rule re.
quiring two-thirds vote for the nomina-
ton of the candidate That would test
the sense of the convention on the subject.
Reasons for u New Rule.
Those who advocate this change insist
that it is the only way by which to secure
a candidate in full agreement with the
platform. They declare that the extra
strength required of the candidate under
the rule as it now exists simply means
deals and dickers in the interest of a modi-
fcation of the platform in case the candi-
GATE so nominated shall succeed at the
polls Their motto is, a platform with but
one meaning, candidate who honestly
represents it, and both put forward by
the same vote in convention.