The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-06-07
THE NEWS OBSERVER. MORNING,

new rule was itself the Sub
| Jest of mach discussion and con-
struce:on by both the convent;or ano
it's distinguished chairman, CALEB Cusa-
ing. during the protTacted session, the
question being ON the effect to be given
the words provided or directed.
These rules of the Charleston conyen-
! ton have been continued in operation
| by the several subsequent conventions
icluding that Of 1892, and as they viii
! in all probability be again adopted a
Chicago in July next, a brief review OF
| the questions raised and decisions
made at Charleston may be pertinent
and perhaps useful as presidents in the
convention of the present year.
LAMAR'S QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
| On the sixth day of the session AZ
| Charleston, pending a vote by roll call
on a resolution of privilege, Mr.. Lamar
submitted as a question of privilege,
whether the State convention of Geor-
gia, having requested" delegates from
that State to vote on all questions as
unit. the delegates were not bound
! by the rule to SO vote.
The decision of the chair was that
the request of a State convention
should be literally construed, and
would be included in the term pro
vided," in that phrase of the rule which
declares that Tin any State which has
not provided or directed by its State
convention how its vote may he given,
etc.
This decision of the chairman was
, acquesced in by the convention The
next day, however, the question being
taken on amendment to the platform,
Mr.. Williamson, of New Jersey, called
attention to the fact that the State con-
yention of New Jersey had, by resolu-
tion instructed dts delegates to vote for
certain candidate, and had recon
nended" that the votes on all other
questions be cast as unit. He submit
ted whether the delegates from that
State were not now bound to vote as a
unit.
The chair held that a similar con-
struction should be given to the word
RECOMMENDED" as was given to the
word requested" in the Georgia case,
and that the vote of New Jersey must
be cast as a unit
An appeal was taken from this lat
ter decision of the chair and resulted
in reversing the ruling by vote OF
AS for sustaining the decision to Isl
against Subsequently a majority of
the New Jersey delegation signed and
presented a formal protest against this
action OF the convention. Later on a
still more interesting decision was
made, which may possibly be of special
relevancy next July.
On the eighth day at Charleston, a
number of delegates from Alabama,
Georgia, Arkansas, and other States,
had formally withdrawn from the con-
yention, having first signed and pre-
sented communications to the chair
man setting forth the reasons for
their action. OF the thirty-six dele
gates from the State of Georgia, only
eleven remained. A vote being taken.
Mr.. Holden, of Georgia. one of the
delegates who remained, requested that
the eleven votes remaining of that dele
CATION be recorded.
The chairman, however, held, it hav-
ing appeared that the delegates were
requested to vote as a unit, and a ma
lcrity of the delegation having with
drawn, first protesting that no vote
should thereafter be cast on
behalf of Georgia, the action of the
majority must prevail, and none of the
remaining eleven could be counted.
NOT DISCUSSED AT BALTIMORE.
The Charleston convention having
adjourned to meet in Baltimore, the
actual proceedings at the latter city
were of short duration, and the unit
rule appears not to have been the sub
ject of discussion.
Passing over the subsequent conven-
tons, in each of which the unit rule,
along with the other rules of 1860, were
successfully retained, it will suffice to
mention the latest decision on the sub
ject, made by the chairman of the
Chicago convention of 1892.
A vote was being taken on an amend
nent to the platform, when the State
OF Pennsylvania being called, it's chair
man announced THE vote of the delega-
ton to be sixtyfour nays. Thereupon
Mr.. William A. Wallace arose, and on
behalf of fifteen members of the dele
CATION, protested against the power of
the delegation to bind those fifteen del
egates on questions of principle. 1t
appeared that the Pennsylvania State
convention had instructed the delega-
ton to vote as a unit upon all ques-
tfons. The chairman then ruled that
in accordance with the practice in pre-
ceding conventions, in cases where the
State conventions have directed the
vote TO be cast as a nit, the vote as an
nounced by the chairman of the delega-
ton must be accepted as the vote of
that delegation. An appeal was taken
by Mr.. Wallace from the decision, but
was afterwards withdrawn.
The unit rule has been criticised as
unfair to minorities, as the 'two-
thirds" rule has been denounced un-
just to majorities. But the same crit
icism is equally applicable to the cleo
tion of Presidential electors where ma
jorities, however small, are often per-
United to exert an influence nearly dou-
bic their real strength. The unit rule,
by snppressing any expression of the
will of the minority, gives 10 the more
populous States an Importance in both
conventions and electoral colleges
which they are naturally reluctant to
surrender. A redeeming quality is.
however, that it is a rule which NAV
be worked both ways. While a senti-
ment has existed in some of the States
against the exercise of control over del
egates by means of the rule, vet even
in these States it is being realized tina:
their influence will be neutralized by
fanIfIrn I'm aI0st.f