The Washington herald., 1908-07-06

action would be a change OF the rule; TO
which II was answered that the previous
resolution constituting the rule was simply
q direction TO the chairman, which the
convention might annul by a majority
| vote. The resolution was adopted by ac-
clamation, and Douglas became the nom
| inee.
! The seeding convention, consisting Of
about one-third OF the delegates, also
| adopted two-thirds rule, but the nom
inee Of Breckinridge was unanimous.
From 1860 to 1904.
The rules CT 1850 were adopted in 1864
and 1868 Gov. Seymour. chairman in
! 1865. was careful early in the proceedings
that the two-thirds rule should be clearly
understood. After reviewing the proceed
ings at Charleston and Baltimore. he an
nounced that until otherwise resolved the
chairman would declare no candidate 70
be nominated who should not have re-
| ceIYed twc-thirds of the vote Of the full
! convention
In the convention held at Chicago in
1896 the chair announced that under the
rule adopted in 1S52. and since continued
in the opinion Of the chair two-thirds Of
the vo,e given Will nominate a candidate
for President and Vice President Of the
! United States. In so far as the chair
may have intended by this announcement
70 hold that two-thirds Of the full con-
vention would not in accordance with
the precedents be required 10 nominate.
he obviously overlooked the resolution
! Of the Charleston convention Of 1850 con-
STRUNG the rule, as also the carefully con-
sidered decision OF Gov. Seymour in 1868.
AS matter Of fact, this announcement
| by the chairman In 1896 was an unneces-
sary dictum fer the nominees for both
| the Presidency and the Vice Presidency
] received largely more than twO-thirds Of
! the vote Of the full convention. and no
| occasion arose requiring the convention
/ 20 adopt construction Of the rule diff
1 ferent from that which il had formerly
received.
/ In the Kansas City convention Of 1900
and the St Louis convention OF 1904 the
nominees fer both Offices received the
unanimous vote Of the fun convention.
and the two-thirds rule was not called in
! question.
! This rule is. Of course. a rule OF policy
/ and the fact that a majority can. II il
! choose. amend or rescind it at any time
4 Is sufficient answer 70 the. charge that
1t menaces the Will OF the majority.
Origin of the Unit Rule.
The unit rule. as It is termed. recog-
/ niZes the right Of State conventions 10
/ instruct their delegations TO vote soldiy
as majority Of the delegates may decide
/ In the first Democratic convention. In
| 1892. IL was resolved that each State
should select from its number a dele
gate by whom the vote Of the delegation
| should be cast. each State being given bv
! another resolution a number Of votes
equal 10 its vote IN the electoral college.
THIS rule was successfully adopted at
/ the Democratic conventions Of 1875. lSa.
and 1874. In ls4S. however. the first unit
rule proper was incorporated in the Dem
ocrauc code OF procedure. At the na-
tional convention held in May Of that
year the following resolution was adopted:
Resolved. That On voting 7pon any question which
may arse % the Duccedlngs q this convention the
vote shah be taken Hy States az the request of any
one state each State 20 u entitled 20 the number
| q votes 20 which sica State Is entitled In the
electoral college without regard 20 The number of
delegates IN attendance. the manner IN which said
/ Of each state for itself
This rule was adopted at the conven-
ton Of 1882 in the same form. and again
at the Cincinnati convention of 1886. by
the customary resolution. "that the rules
I OF the last convention be adopted as the
rules Of this convention
Amended in Charleston Convention.
At the Charleston convention the rules
Of the preceding convention, including. OF
course. the unit rule. were readopted on
the first day. The next day the committee
reported an additional rule. whicn is sub
stantially an amendment 10 the unit rule.
as follows: That in any State which has
not provided or directed by its State con
vention how its vote may be given. the
convention will recognize the right OF
each delegate 10 cast his individual vote. e"
After discussion this was adopted.
These rules Of the Charleston convention
have been continued by readoption by the
several conventions down 10 the last con
vention.
IN the sixth day at Charleston. Mr.. La
mar submitted the question whether. the
State convention OF Georgia having re
quested" the delegates from that State 20
vote on all questions as a unit. the dele
gates were not bound by the rule 10 so
vote. The chair held that the request
would b. included in the term directed. %
The next day Mr.. Williams made the
point that the New Jersey convention had
instructed for a certain candidate and had
recommended that tie vote on all other
questions be cast as a unit He submitted
the question whether the delegates were
not bound thereby 10 vote es a unit. The
/ chair held that a similar construction
should be given 70 the word recommend
as 10 the word request" and the vote
cast as a unit On appeal. the chair was
reversed by a vote OF Isl 10 AS. \ ma
jority Of the New Jersey delegation signed
a protest against this decision Of the con
vention. On the eighth day a number OF
the delegates from the several States had
withdrawn from the convention. OF the
thirtysiX Georgia delegates only eleven
remained. The request was made by one
OF the latter that their votes be recorded.
The chair, however. held that It having
| appeared that the delegates were request
ed TO vote as unit and a majority Of the
delegation having withdrawn. first pro-
testing that no vote should thereafter be
cast on behalf OF Georgia, the action
OF the majority must prevail. and none of
the remaining eleven could be counted.
At the Chicago convention Of 1892, on an
amendment 10 the platform. Mr.. Wallace,
OF Pennsylvania, on behalf Of fifteen mem
bers OF the sixty-four insisted that they
should not be bound by the majority on a
( question Of principle. The chair held tlat
the instruction Of the State convention
must prevail and the vote cast as a unit.
/ as decided by majority Of the delegation.
AS has been observed, the phraseology
! of the resolutions instructing the dele