New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-10
MINORITY RULE AT ST. LOUIS.

Three months ago many Democratic states
men were talking about abolishing the two
thirds rule at ST. Louis. At that time it was
not certain that the conservative" faction
would have a twO-thirds majority in the ma
tonal convention. Hints were thrown out that
the conservatives" having adopted platform
By majority vote, would not hesitate If neces-
SHY demanded to amend the rules and choose
a nominee for the Presidency by a bare major
ity. 1t was argued that the two-thirds rule was
an anachronism in politics. relic Of the past.
a device whose usefulness ended when the ante
bellum conditions it grew out Of and applied to
passed away. In our day, it was contended.
the two-thirds rule was left unJustifed IN rea-
son or expediency. In denying control to the
majority. It violated democratic theory. In
giving the veto power TO a numerically weak
minority, IL encouraged factiOnalism and put
premium on the activities OF the political trader
and the political boss"
Now that complete conservative" control at
St Louis is assured. and it is clear that the
radical opposition viii number less than third
OF the convention, agitation for the abolition
Of the two-thirds rule has largely subsidized.
The winning faction does not feel like upsetting
a custom which no longer clogs its freedom Of
action. 1t is satisfied 10 triumph under the
present antiQuated rule and TO let another con-
vention, in which the contending interests are
more evenly balanced, fight out the abstract
question OF a majority's right TO sweep away
as impotent and futile limitations put by the
mere warrant Of custom on fits natural and in
herent power In view Of this disinclination 10
suspend the two-thirds rule next month, It is
now sensibly suggested by The Washington
POST that the Democratic leaders at st. Louis
take certain steps TO discover whether party
sentiment is not ripe for the abandonment Of
the principle Of minority Veto "The POST asks
| the convention TO invite a definite expression
| from all the States and Territories between
| now and 1905, and to provide for vote IN the
! 1903 convention on resembling or retaining the
! two-thirds rule. Should serious objection arise
! at ST. Louis to altering party custom of over
| seventy years standing. il might be stipulated
| that two-thirds adverse majority should be
required 70 revise the present minority veto out
| Of the Democratic convention code
AS is well known. the twO-thirds rule was IN
vented and imposed on the party in 1882 by
! Southern leaders who were anxious 10 put
| check on Ncrthern power IN national cOnven-
tons. and saw In the twO-thirds device sure
means of defeating denomination OF any Presi-
Dental candidate unacceptable TO the slave
States 1t was a concession 70 the spirit Of Sec
tionslisrn then dominant IN politics, and as such
| had at least logical basis. But, with the dis
appearance OF slavery and the sectional issue,
| the South no longer needs this veto power IN
Democra &c. councils. Nor does any other sec
ton need Il The Democratic party never uses
| the two-thirds rule I'm its State or other minor
| conventions. II enforces rigid majority rule
| 81 the choice OF delegates 20 the national con-
vention. BY countansncing the unit rule il
everywhere limits and repro .G'7n-i rnpre-
snntation. :" tr Ie 4 It lis party
80 'iiciis it - Is the wili OF deei ed majority
la b denIei aud thwarted. and turns the Presi-
dental nomination over 70 those dickaTng poll
ucisns who can best manipulate conflicting in,