The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-10

For an interesting chapter on recent
party history. which brings down the mar
rative to the autumn election of 1902, We
must refer the reader to the book itself.
because we desire to note what Prof.
WOODBURY. has to say about American
party machinery and about the ethical
problems involved in party politics. In
a discussion Of The National Convention
Of To- Day" we are reminded that there are
two types of nominating bodies, which
may he distinguished by their respec-
tive attitudes toward the two-thirds rule
and the unit rule. The two-thirds rule,
OF course. provides that no candidate shall
be declared nominated unless he shall re-
ceive two-thirds Of all the votes cast. Tho
Republican National Conventions have
never adopted this rule; In them bare ma
jority of one suffices to nominate. In Demo-
cratic National Conventions, on the other
hand. the rule has always been followed
except once. 1t was adopted by the first
Democratic Convention held in 1882, con-
vention called by the supporters of Presi-
dent jackson for the purpose OF nominating
a candidate for the Vice Presidency. The
rule Was again observed In 1896, hut not
In 1910. 1t was revived in 1914, In order
to defeat the nomination OF Van Buren,,
and the Democratic party has since con-
formed to 1t. There is an obvious reason
for the difference in the attitudes of the two
parties toward the two-thirds rule. II
the Republicans accepted the unit rule
they would be tempted to adopt the two
thirds rule also. 1t Is largely because the
Democrats adhere to the unit rule that they
are unwilling to renounce the two-thirds
rule II the two-thirds rule should be
abrogated while the unit rule prevailed,
1t is evident that few Of the larger States,
though their delegations might be nearly
evenly divided, could, by enforcing the
unit rule. secure a majority OF the con-
vention for a candidate whom only mi
nor1ty Of the delegates really favored. The
two-thircIs rule lessons the probability Of
such result. 1t is for this reason that Mr..
Carl Becker has regarded the two rules az
two parts Of q single system.
The unit rule is Ole that allows Out does
not compel) the majority Of State dele
CATION to cast the entire vote Of State.
The whole vote Of the State must be cast
as q majority OF the delegation shall de-
eide. There has been some variation In
Democratic practice, however Thus In
1880 the Democratic National Convention
declared that In any State which has not
provided or directed by its State conven-
ton how its vote may be given, the CON-
vention will recognize the right OF each
delegate to cast his individual vote II
State had instructed OF requested it's
delegation To vote "a unit, the conven
ton rules that the delegation must do 40,
and that the ma jority Of II should decide.
That Is to say, the authority OF the State
convention was recognized. In 1872 the
Democratic National Convention decided
that, in voting for candidates for Presi-
dent ard vice-President. -the chairman of
each delegation shall rise In his place and
name how the delegation voted, and his
statement should be considered the vote Of
such State This left to the convention
no means Of discovering whether a delega-
ton which voted as a unit was doing 30
under State instruction. or whether the
ma jority, In the absence OF instruction.
might not be forcing unit vote through
its control Of the chairman. From the date
last named until 1895, as Mr.. Carl Becker
has shown, the statements Of the chairman
have been more or less arbitrarily received.
and all objections have been ruled out of
order, and that, too, on all questions on
which State vote has been called for.
There was, TO be sure, resistance to the
unit rule in 1884 on the part Of those who
hoped to defeat Mr.. Cleveland by pre-
venting the whole vote of New York from
being cast for him. The unit rule was
sustained. however, by large majority
in the convention. On the ground that to
deny the States tho right to say how their
will should he Expressed would be to strike
blow at The n sovereignty. 'The Re-
publican, party may stand for centralized
power, but the Democratic party should
stand for tho rights Of the States In
1893 the PRECEDENT was established Of giving
any delseatS the right to challenge the
vote % announced by The chairman Of his
dslsgatson. whsn . ohalenss = oGsssd.