New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-05-13
THE TWO-THIRDS AND UNIT RULES.

Signs are multiplying that the Democratic
voters and the more intelligent Democratic lead
ers are weary of submitting to the tyranny Of
the two-thirds and unit rules. The Republican
party rid itself of those obstructive bonds in
1876. The Democratic party is usually gener-
alton behind its more progressive rival in polit
ical ideas and practice and it is now about time
for the disciples of jefferson to wake up to the
fact that the two-thirds rule and the unit rule
are a scandalous travesty of Jefersonian princi-
pies of individual free agency and majority gov
ernment Mr. BRYAN in speech in Brooklyn
last year on the anniversary of Jeffersons birth
declared that modern Democrats might differ on
sixty-seven or more other issues and still be rec
ognized one and all as Democrats, but that the
Democrat who disputed the principle Of majority
rule must be forthwith end forever excommuni-
Gated. Naturally the Nebraska leader looks with
little favor on contrivances like the twOthirdS
and unit rules. which were devised for the e1-
press purpose of defeating fair expression of
party opinion and of limiting the power of a
majority in Democratic national conventions.
There are of course Democrats who al
WAYS ready 70 sacrifice JefferSonian principle to
personal or sectional interest. In THE Wash
ington Post of Monday the Hon. John Sharp
WiiE ans is reported as answering, when asked
if he favored the abolition of the twO-thirds
rule: "Of course not. 1t established TO
of entire frankness The two-thirds rule was
established in 1914 to clinch the hold of the
Southern minority on the Democratic party of
that day. 1t a species of veto on majority
rule granted TO the South in violation of Demo
cratic principle and Mr.. Williams is still sec
tionalist enough to want to hold to an illog
zeal special privilege. We notice, however, that
there are other Democratic Representatives who
are desectionazed sufficiently to see that 10
minority element in the party ought TO enjoy
exemption from the fundamental rule of demo-
cratic government. Representatives David A. De
Almond. of Missouri: John Wesley Gaines, of
Tennessee, and Robert L. Henry, Morris SheI,-
pard and H. Il. Cooper of Texas, quoted III
The Post" as fayOring Il return 10 purer de-
mocracy in convention methods, and there can
be no doubt that the more progressive Demo
cratic leaders, even at the South, realize thai
the Democratic party cannot afford much longer
to maintain convention ordinances which seek
TO Illustrate legitimate expression Of the Will
OF the majority.
As for the unit rule the Massachusetts con-
vention last week expressly declined TO enforce
it on the national delegates chosen by tie voters
in the Congress districts. In Pennsylvania COM
plications have arisen from the fact that the
Congress districts, acting as units under the
state primary law, elected delegates to Denver
at the same time that they elected delegates to
the state convention The claim is now set up
by many district delegates that the state cou- |
vention has no power 10 control their action |
either by instructiHg them by directing them |
TO submit 10 the unit rule. Says well known |
leader in Philadelphia, Mr.. John III. |
Fow, who was elected as district delegate, re |
plying TO all inquiry addressed 10 him by The |
Philadelphia Record:
Under the law unit rule adopted by an |
ganization govern the actions of delegate |
to a national convention, elected at an election |
held under the laws Of the commonwealth He |
stands in the same position exactly as any men,
Der Of the Legislature, and Is only governed by |
the rules of the convention to which he is
elected member.
Other delegates elect in Pennsylvania have
written in the same strain. This comes from
Mr.. A. V. Dively, delegateel elect from the 18th
District:
| believe that the unit rule is a bad rule / |
believe that the delegates ought to vote the
ments OF the people OF the various districts |
arge concerned, of course the state conyen- |
ion might instruct them. but as to the state
convention instructing the district deleEates or |
adopting the unit rule by any instructions or |
resolutions that Il may pass. / assume IL will
rave no effect and Will not bind the Congress
ional delegates.
From Mr.. Dewitt c. Dewitt, Of the 14th Dis
riot:
l contend the state convention has no power
o instruct delegates il does not make | am
opposed TO the unit rule. 1t is not Democratic
the unit rule is to be carried out | would sug-
est that but delegate be sent from this
tate the Denver convention.
From Mr.. c. ii. Gregg Of the I'D District:
favor an instructed delegation to the Denver
invention in far the state convention
able to give those instructions In other
,ords / mean 10 say that since the passage of |
he act Of Assembly Of 1906 which is COM
1only known a. the uniform primary law, the