The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-06-07
HISTORY or THE UNIT RULE.

HISTORY or THE UNIT RULE.
A Convention Measure That Suppress
Minorities.
Speaking of the National convention
Oh 1892, a Very prominent delegate to
the Democratic convention recently OBJ
served that the nomination OF Mr.
Cleveland IN that year was due to the
unit rule, and he could never have re-
ceived the requisite vote but for the en-
forcement by the convention of the
rule, whereby many delegates favora-
ble TO Mr.. Hill and to other candidates
were counted against their will to
swell the Cleveland majority. TO be
sure, the unit rule had been adopted
in the New York convention, where al,
of the delegates were for Hill, but not
ii single vote did he gain by the opera
ton of the rule, tor they were all
pledged to him from the outset, and
the direction that the delegation vote
as a unit was apparently adopted out
of a super-abundance of caution. On
the other hand, delegates from Mis-
souri,, Illinois, Minnesota, and Penn
sylvanfa, whose preferences were for
other candidates, were voted in solid
bodies for Mr.. Cleveland, resulting in
his nomination on the first ballot.
This rule formerly existed in Repub-
| lican conventions, but in 1880 was aban-
doned. In Democratic conventions it
has been a usage or an express rule
from the time of Jackson down to the
present. This rule recognizes State
delegations as entireties and subject
to the instructions of their respective
State conventions.
In the first Democratic National con-
ycntion in 1882, it was resolved that
each State should select from their
number a delegate by whom the vote
OF the delegation should be cast-each
State being given by another resolution
a number of votes equal to its vote in
the electoral college. The States were
thus recognized as States, and each del
egiation voted through single spokes-
man. The above mentioned rule, or
resolution, was successfully re-adopted
i'll substantially the same form at the
conventions of 1885, 1910 and 1874
1t was a frequent custom in these
early conventions for State delegations
to come commissioned with instruc-
tions DO support a certain candidate or
candidates, and SO long as these in
structions were obeyed, as seems al
ways to have been the case, there was
little occasion for the adoption by the
National convention of a rule which
would limit or confine The action of
the individual delegate, and deprive
him of his full discretion on all ques-
tions. In 1s4S, however, the first unit
rule proper was incorporated in the
Democratic code of procedure. At the
National convention held in May of
that year the following resolution was
adopted:
ON THE REQUEST OF ANY STATE.
Resolved, That upon voting upon any
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 to be enti-
tiled to the number of votes to which
such State is entitled in the electoral
college, without regard to the number
of delegates in attendance, the manner
in which said vote is to be cast to be
decided by the delegation of each State
for itself.
The concluding lines are particularly
significant: 1.-THE manner in which said
vote is to be cast to be decided by the
delegation of each State for itself"
While the power thus given State del.
egations may have been intended to be
simply directory, with a view of per-
mitting the majority DISQUALIFICATION
to determine how their vote should be
divided, as expressing the views of the
individual members, or how the in
strtlotions from their constituents
should be carried out, yet liberal con-
structon of the words would confer
upon the majority much more extern
sive power-that of not only suppress
ing any expression of the will of the
minority, but actually transposing it
to increase the strength Of their oppo-
nents, and that, too, without lnstruc-
tions ON the subject from their con-
stituent State conventions. In fact,
this construction of the rule gave the
majority the same power of instruc-
ton which the State Conventions were
previously recognized to possess.
This rule was adopted at the conyen-
ton of 1852, in the same form, and
, again at the Cincinnati convention OF
1856, by the customary resolution; That
the rules of the last convention be
/ si&iODIGd DIS uI1G IuleS vi bAliS COuNCLL
The power thus given the majority Of
a delegation does not seem to have been
seriously abused at these conventions,
for we find that States divided their
votes ON the several questions which
arose. as well as in the balloting for
Presidential and Vice-Presdential can
tl;tIates Whether this resulted from a
doubt as to the true intent and purport
of the rule, or from the moderation of
the delegation majorities does not
clearly appear from the proceedings.
At the memorable Charleston con-
yention of 1860, the rules OF the preced-
ing Cincinnati convention, including
Of course, the unit rule, were re-adopt-
ed on the first day of its session. The
next day the committee on organiza-
ton reported to the convention an adj
ditional rule, which was practically an
amendment TO the unit rule. The rule
reported was: ''That in any State
" hich has not provided or directed by
its State convention how its vote may
/. &c given, the convention will recognize