The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-07-05

1 direction to the chairman, which the convention might annul by a majority vote. The resolution was adopted by exclamation, and Douglas became the l nominee
 The seeding convention, consisting of about one-third of the delegates, also 1 adopted a two-thirds rule, but the nomi- nation of Brecl1inridge was unanimous.
 From 1860 to 1904.
 The rules of 1860 were adopted in 1864 and 1868. Governor Seymour chairman in 1868, was careful early in the proceedings that the twothirds 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 to be nominated who should not have re- eeived two-thirds of the vote of the full l convention.
 l In the convention held at Chicago in 1896 the chair announced that under the rule adopted in 1852, and since continued | as the rule of succeeding conventions, l 'in the opinion of the chair, two-thirds of the vote given will nominate eandi- | date for president and vice president Of the United States" In so far as the chair may have intended by this announcement l to hold that two-thirds of the full con- vention would not, in accordance with the 1 rrecedents, be required to nominate, he 1 bviously overlooked the resolution Of the 1 Charleston convention of 1860, construins 1 the rule, as also the carefully considered l decision of Governor Seymour in 1868. AS a matter of fact, this announcement by 1 the chairman in 1896 was an unnecessary dictum, for the nominees for both the presidency and the vice presidency re- ceved largely more than two-thirds of the vote of the full convention, and no oeea- 1 sion arose requiring the convention to | .f A1,r rt1ad ant l from that which 1t had formerly received. In the Kansas City convention of 1900 and the St. Louis convention of 1904 the nominees for both offices received the unanimous vote of the full 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, If 1t choose amend or rescind it at any time is sufficient answer to 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 to instruct their delegations to vote solidly as majority of the delegates may decide. In the first democratic convention, in 1892 it was resolved that each state should select from it's number a delegate by whom the vote of the delegation should ] other resolution a number of votes equal to its vote in the electoral college This rule was successively adopted at the dem ocratic conventions of 1885, 1S40, and 1S44 In 1S4S, however, the first unit rule proper was incorporated In the democratic code l of procedure. At the national convention held in May of that year the following 1 resolution was adopted:
 Resolved. That on voting upon any question which may arise in the proceed ings of this convention, the vote shall be 1 taken by states at the request of any one state, each state to be entitled to the number of votes to which such state is entitled in the electoral college, without regard to the number of delegates in at tendance, the manner in which said vote Is to be cast to be decided by the dele l gation of each state for itself"
 1 This rule was adopted at the conven- | tion of 1852 in the same form, and again at the Cincinnati convention of 1856, by the customary resolution, 'that the rules of the last convention be adopted as the rules of this convention"
 Amended In Charleston Convention. 1 At the Charleston convention the rules of the preceding convention, including of 1 course the unit rule. were readopted on the first day. The next day the commit tee reported an additional rule, which is l substantially an amendment to the unit rule, as follows: That in any state which has not provided or directed by it's state l convention how its vote may be given. the convention will recognize the right of each delegate to cast his individual vote," After discussion this was adopted.
 These rules of the Charleston convention have been continued by readoption by the several conventions down to the last con vention.
 On the sixth day at Charleston, MT. La mar submitted the question whether, the state convention of Georgia having Ire quested" the delegates from that state to vote on all questions as a unit the dele gates were not bound by the rule to so vote The chair held that the request would be included in the term directed"
 The next day MT. Williams made the point that the New Jersey convention had instructed for certain candidate and had recommended" that the vote on all other question be cast as a unit. He submitted the question whether the delegates were not bound thereby to vote unit. The chair held that a similar construction should be given to the word .recom- mend' as to the word "request,' and the vote cast as a unit. On appeal, the chair was reversed by a vote of 151 to 145. A majority of the New Jersey delegation signed a protest against this decision of the convention. On the eighth day a. number of the delegates from the several states had withdrawn from the conven- ton. Of the 36 Georgia delegates only Il remained The request was made by one of the latter that their votes be recorded. The chair, however, held that 1t having appeared that the delegates were request ed to vote as a unit and a majority of the delegation having withdrawn, first protesting that no vote should thereafter be cast on behalf of Georgia, the action of the majority must prevail, and none of the remaining Il could be counted.
 At the Chicago convention of 1892, on an amendment to the platform, MT. Wallace of Pennsylvania, on behalf of 15 members of the GA, insisted that they should not be bound by the majority on question of principle. The chair held that the in- struction of the state convention must prevail and the vote cast a unit, as decided by majority of the delegation ] As has been observed, the phraseology of the resolutions instructng the dele- gates has been exceedingly varied, in- dicating at times a purpose to leave cer- tain matters discretionary with the dele gates, while in others positively requiring them to act as directed.
 Rulings at Chicago In 1896.
 At Chicago, in 1896, the unit rule having been continued in force along with other rules of preceding conventions, it appear had resolved follows
 We hereby direct the delegates from ! Wisconsin to the democratic national