The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-02-05
BRYAN IN POLITICS
viii He Control Next Demo-
cratic Convention?
THAT TWO-THIROS VOTE
1t viii Enable the Nebraskan
to Cut a Figure.

New York, Feb. Can William j.
Bryan control the next Democratic con-
vention? That is question which is agi-
tating the mind of more than one aspiring
politician in the party. 1t is far more
than d matter OF the nomination or defeat
of Bryan himself That is by 80 means a
difficult feat to accomplish. IL one may
Judge from the drift of sentiment in some
of the states that joined in the vote of
reclamation that lifted Bryan once more
into the chief place in the party four
years ago at the Kansas City convention.
If, as he has stated in rather oblique
terms more than once, the Nebraskan
would refuse TO have his name consid-
cred for the first place on the ticket, will
he forego the pleasure of squaring &C
counts with those who contributed direct
" or indiTerently to his overthrow in the
last two campaigns?
In answering this question due consd-
Grafton must be given 10 the peculiar
rules which govern the action of Demo-
cratic conventions. In the first place. all
candidates must be chosen by a two
thirds vote of all the delegates present.
once proved a stumbling block to those
who would sway the convention to their
will. AS a corollary of this the unit rule
obtains in the voting This regulation, re-
quiring the votes Of the delegates from
a single state TO be cast as unit, Is not
obligatory but depends upon the Will OF
the delegates themselves. It is not set
tied as to whether the use or dislse Of
the unit rule by Il delegation is to be
adopted by a majority vote Of the delega-
ton or may be prevented by single
dissenting voice. both methods having
been followed at different times.
IN the first convention in 1872 the fol-
lowing resolution was adopted: In TAX
ing the vote the majority of the dele
gates from each state designate the per-
son by whom the votes for that state
shall be given" This did not settle the
question Of the right Of the majority to
decide also ne person for whom the vote
should be east. and the proha bility is that
50 extreme an extension OF the power OF
the majority was not intended. The next
step OF any Importance taken in this di-
rection was in 1S4S when this resolution
was adopted by the convention: Re
solved. That in voting upon any ques-
lions which may arise in the convention
the votes shall be taken by states At the
request OF any one state the man
ner in which said vote is cast u b. de-
cided by the delegation OF each state for
itself" The first contest under this rule
occurred in 1S52. when protest was made
by a member OF the delegation from
q
represent the will of all the members Of
the delegation. The chairman. however.
ruled that the vote mus, stand as an
nounced
The occurrence II disputes over the in
terpre tation ard application Of the unit
rule Is indicated b. the fact that in 1871
q resolution was adopted Declaring "that
in any state which has not provided or
directed By IS state convention how us
vote may Re given. the convention VII
recognize The right = each delegate 70
cast his individual vote. This thTew
the decision back upon Re state con-
vention. and made Il clear that IN The
absence Of definite Instructions and then
onIy. the indiv dual members Of The dele
cation might exercise freedom = choice
n the voting
The frs; clash urds- this trteFprst = tton
81 the unit rule came IN fss4. when Grover
Cleveland vas a candidate for TIRE no-nin-
alton lie vas opposed by TamEns ~
Han. and that organization. represented
~ MessrS- Grady and Kelly. made zig
orous protest against the casting y the
entire vote - he delegation for Mr.
Cleveland. tn vote o. The delegation
landing s. Tor Nlr Cseveiana AID =
against him The PROPOSED s1ne ndzneut
70 TIE rules allowing each ln1.vidaal - I
vote separately. II ~ disagreed vita the
ma fori;y q h5s dslegation. Eas lost IN
The Convention ~ vote 81 - 90 -
IN ISs another dispute srose ever the