Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-01-12
Representation in State Convention.

The st. Albans Messenger published
Saturday table showing the number of
delegates each town In the state will be en-
titled to in the next Republican state and
district conventions. The table was COM
piled by giving one delegate to each town
and one additional delegate for each 100
votes, or a fraction of 100 votes larger than
80 cast by the town for the Republican
candidate for governor in the last election.
The Messenger figured that there would be
035 delegates in the next state convention,
or l49 less than two years ago. Brattle-
boro's delegation, which two years ago
was II, second only to Burlington, was re-
duced to four, putting this town below
Brandon, Bristol and Rockingham, and on
the same level with Richford, Enosburgh,
Highgate and Jericho.
The Messengers article led The Phoenix
to make an investigation, and we believe
that our contemporary is in error in figur-
ing on the last gubernatorial vote as a
basis of representation. From 1882 to
1894, inclusive, the basis was always the
vote for governor in a presidential year.
In 1883, when Carroll S. Page was chair
man of the state committee, a call was
issued for the state convention Oh the
basis of the vote in 1856. Mr.. Page dis
covered the mistake, however, and sent
out a supplementary circular letter, chang
ing the basis, and making it the vote in
1884, presidential year
When a resolution was adopted in the
state convention, fixing representation on
the vote in presidential year, we are un-
able to state, but it was earlier than 1882.
Our files show the adoption OF such a reso-
luton in the Second district convention in
1882. The district has never taken action
to change the instructions given then, so
far as we can ascertain, and apparently
they are in force now. 1t is also probable
that the representation in the state con-
vention should be figured on the same
basis. A mistake seems to have been
made in apportioning the delegates in the
state convention of 1896, on the guber-
Material vote in a non-presidential year.
In the report of the state convention in
1894 we find no statement in regard to a
change being authorized from the custom
which had been followed from 1892, and
perhaps longer.
Hon. Olin Merrill, who was chairman of
the state committee in 1894 and 1896, says
that he does not remember that the ques-
tion of fapportionment was raised during his
term of service on the state committee,
and that the calling of conventions was
left with the secretary. 1t seems probable
that there was no reason for making the
change in 1896. 1t will be remembered
that Josiah Grout was nominated for gov
ernor, receiving only three more votes than
made up by the rule which had been in
force ii years at least would have made
Mr.. Stckney governor is question which
his friends may wish to discuss.
The matter is one of great Importance
this year, making difference of 149 dele
gates in the state convention. The vote
in a presidential year is a much better test
of the Republican strength of a town than
the vote of an "off'' year, when many men
do not come to the polls, in both parties,
particularly in Vermont. The subject is
one which demands attention from the
present state committee, and if they find
that there was no authority for making
the change in the call for 1896, the vote in
that year and not in 1898 will decide the
number of delegates. The district CON-
mittee apparently have their instructions,
passed in 1882, which give them no option
| in the matter