New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-22
Alta CKS ON THE VETO POWER
WHY THE AGITATION IS RENEWED JUST
NOW
THE ADVOCATES OF FREE SILVER COINAGE WANT
THE PRIVILEGES OF GOLD BUG"
PRESIDENTS CIyRTAuED

THE PRIVILEGES OF GOLD BUG"
PRESIDENTS CURTAILED.
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrBUNEl
Washington Apiil 21.-The recent public attack on
the veto power of the President by Senator Jones'
OF Arkansas; the formal announcement that the
Democratic National Convention at Chicago In July
Is be requested TO pass upon the question Of the
abolition material modification Of the veto power;
the introduction by Senator Butler. Of Nor,h Caro-
lina Of joint resolution proposing an amendment
Of the Federal Constitution to empower Congress
to pass bill over the Presidents veto by a ma
jority votea these coincident outbreaks OF reform
Ing energy have naturally attracted widespread In
terest Talking on this subject, one Of the older
Senators remarked to-day:
"All Of these propositions are threshing Of old
straw. 1t is interesting fact. though. that the
most jealous of the agitators Of veto abolition or
veto curtailment free silver men. who frankly
admit that their present agitation OF the anti-veto
question has a direct bearing upon the programme
Of the advocates of free silver coinage. As long
as gold bug Presidents can override the VIII OF a
majority in Congress- there will be very poor
chance to get free silver coinage law upon the
statute books but II the veto power Of the man at
the other end OF the avenue were abolished or cur
tailed they reasonably certain that free coinage
legislation would be secured. Senator Jones. OF
Arkansas Is very jealous OF the rights OF the
majority He contends for the principle OF ma
jority rule and he says his advocacy OF the
abolition Of the Presidential veto is based upon his
belief that the veto is a menace TO majority rule
Therefore the demand is 10 be made upon the Demo-
cratic National Convention at Chicago for dec
laration In favor OF the curtament OF the veto
power OF the President.
ut seems ludcrous to talk about the beauties Of
majority rule to expect war to be made
against 'two-thirds rule In a Democratic National
Convention which WILL In all probability. be itself
governed by the despsed two-thirds rule. II the
y,1s OBJ vfo fha fusl-
thirds rule will only be following the practice OF
every other Democratic National Convention. The
first Democratic National Convention adopted as
Of its rules that in voting for nominees Tor
President and Vice-President two-thirds OF the
whole number Of the votes Of the convention shall
be necessary to constitute a choice. This. says
Henry H. Smith In his useful handbook was the
origin OF the two-thirds rule by which all suose-
ouent Democratic National Conventions have been
governed in making nominations. and though sew.
eral attempts have been mace 20 m e a
.jortiesi ,o,o ,,s,orv ., Democratic National Con-
venons from and including the convention OF 1872 to
the present day, the two-thrds rule has continued
ago. has been readopted II National conven;
ton Of the spGs @ snS bef Dny n n
determined contest made to get rid OF the undemo
cratic rule The Chicago So IN 1s. 81
the last preceding convention There was no serious
to ouT Tn the @ade
the rules for the government of the Cleveland
Stevenson Convenon Of 1892 was sharp fight hi, IN
the Committee on Rules over the unit rule. put
that effort was crushed by vote Of q against To-
This obnoxious unit rule also oIignadted IN sne
words: That In taking the vote the majority OF the
delegates from each State shall designate the per.
son 6y whom the vote for that State shall be given
In the first Cleveland Convention pssD the rules OF
the Tiden Convention Of 1876 and the Hancock con
that in voting for candidate no State SHOULD be
allowed 10 change until the roll OF states
had been called and every State had cast its vote
the ostensible purpose OF which wa" to ss;ps
called That rule operated in the subsequent Ma
tion Conventions Of 1883 and 1892 together with tho
'undemocratic two-thrds rule