Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1896-02-02
CHANGE
In Plan Of Representa-
ton Asked.
RADICAL REFORM IN DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL CONVENTIONS suG-
GEsrED ny NH. HALEY.
AN UNJUST SYSTEM
or nEPREsENTATIUN ny STATES
Is NOW IN VOGUE.


Washington, Feb. .-CSpecIaI)-Con-
gresham Bailey has addressed letter
to Mr.. Clark Howell OF Atlanta. mem
Der Of the Democratic national execu-
tive committee for Georgia, and editor
OF the Atlanta Constitution, advocating
change In the plan OF representation
In the national convention by which a
partial correction will be made OF the
injustice Of the present system in Civ
Ing control Of the convention to states
which do nothing whatever for the par
". The Following is the letter;
House OF Representatives u. S.
Washington. d. c.. Jan. i6, 1896.
Hon. Clark Howell Atlanta, Ga.
My dear sir-As you are q member OF
the Democratic national committee, /
beg leave TO call your attention "
what consider the gross injustice of
the rule under which delegates to the
national Democratic convention have
heretofore been apportioned. Under
II, the state of Massachusetts. which IL
not expected to cast an electoral vote
for the Democratic nominee for presi-
dent and vice-president, is given the
same vote In the selection OF those nom
inees as the state OF Texas. which is
expected to cast her entire electoral
vote for them; and the state OF Penn
sylvania, which has not given In the
thirty years past and perhaps WI
not give in the thirty yearB TO come,
an electoral vote to Democratic can
didate. has more power In nominating
a Democratic candidate than the states
of Georgia, Mississippi and Arknnsns.
without whose electoral votes Demo-
cratic success would be hopeless.
The Injustice Of such system is
obvious: and 1t is. am sure. unneces-
sary for me to urge upon you the wis
dom OF according to the states which
must elect our candidates n control
ling voice in selecting them. So long
-aaE -Aas n o nlnatlnu of a candidate for
tho n-ce'dencv was largely n matter
OF personal preference among men en-
tc"'oinlng the same views and advoca-
ting the same pollticies. the present
system was not particularly objection
able But now, that serious differences
of opinion have arisen In our party. II
becomes the plain duty OF those chnrE-
ed with preserving its organization to
adopt rule which VIII not permit
Democratic candidates TO he nominated
by constituencies which viii not aid in
their election, while they must be elect
ed by constituencies which have oppos-
ed their nomination. ! believe that an
overwhelming majority OF Democrats
will cheerfully submit to the will OF the
Democratic party when fairly nsccr-
taincd. and as the best means or as
certaining II, 7 respectfully Huggs n
either OF the following methods:
First That representation In the ma
tinnal convention shall be based unon
the electoral vote and that each state
shall be allowed two delegates for each
elector to which It may be entitled in
the electoral college. and one additional
delegate for each Democratic elector
chosen at the preceding presidential
election: that each state admitted into
tho Union since the last presidential
election shall be allowed three dele
gates and each territory shall be allow
ed two delePntes; or
Second. That the representation In
the national convention shall he based
unon the congressional representation
of the several states, and two delegates
shall be allowed for each senator and
representative In congress. and one nd
dltional delegates for each Democratic
senator and representative: and two
delegates shall be allowed for each ter
ritory.
Neither OF these two propositions
would esta bllsh the full measure Of JUS
tice TO which the Democratic states
are entitled but both offer some reward
for Democratic fidelity. and either
would he vast IMPROVEMENT on the
existing system. Very truly yours.
J. w. BAILEY.