CHAPTER XII.

THE CONVENTION AND NOMINATION.

THE UNIT RULE-PLATFORM.

It does not lie within the scope of this sketch to present a detailed account of the proceeding at Chicago. A National Convention is always an interesting expression of the political life of this country. No such thing exists or can exist anywhere else. It meets under conditions which require immediate action. The work it has to do must necessarily be done quickly, and with little discussion. So numerous an assemblage cannot long be kept together. It therefore presents a theatre where action must be prompt and decisive, and where men of strong characters, who are able to deal with great masses of people, and at once to master important affairs, find a fit field for their powers.

It is always an able body, far more able than Congress; but the Convention which assembled at Chicago on the 8th of July contained a very unusual number of important men. General Butler, who had already received the nomination of at least two political bodies, was a member of

the Massachusetts delegation. Judge Thurman was in the delegation from Ohio. Colonel Morrison and General Palmer were both representatives from Illinois, and Mr. Hendricks, who had been Mr. Tilden's rival in 1876, and had been his party's candidate that year for Vice-President, was at the head of the Indiana delegation. With him was associated Mr. Voorhees, almost unequaled for the power and effectiveness of his popular oratory. The Governor of Connecticut headed the delegation from that State. Mr. Vilas of Wisconsin, an orator who has lately risen to distinction, was the permanent President. The delegation from New York contained Mr. Kelly, Mr. Belmont, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Manning, Mr. Magone, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Travers, Mr. Kingsley and other men of mark. A large number of the members of the House of Representatives were delegates, and several of the Senators. Nearly all the prominent Democrats in both Houses of Congress were present either as participants, or as witnesses to the proceedings of the body.

The opposition to Governor Cleveland at Chicago was carried on with the greatest vigor, under the leadership of Mr. Kelly and General Butler, assisted by the friends of Mr. Bayard and Senator Thurman. Every inch of ground was contested. Their first effort was to abrogate the rule by which a majority of a State delegation was per

mitted to cast the entire vote of the State as a unit.

This rule was of ancient origin. The Democratic National Conventions from the first estab lished two somewhat peculiar rules of procedure. One of these requires that a nomination must be made by the votes of two-thirds of the delegates. The other recognizes the right of the State to authorize the majority of its delegation to throw its entire vote as a unit upon all questions. The latter of these rules was made the point of attack. It had before been subjected to assault. In the National Convention of 1844 an effort was made to change it. That effort had caused a long debate, in which the ablest Democratic leaders. of that time took part; but the Convention then refused to change the rule.

New York has always granted this power to the majority of its delegation, but the power has not been always used. On a memorable occasion, those who had it in their hands refrained from using it. In 1852 William L. Marcy, of New York, was a candidate for the Presidential nomination. The majority of the delegation, led by Horatio Seymour, was friendly to him, but there was a considerable opposition in the delegation. The session of the Democratic Convention of that year was very protracted. The vote of New York was divided between Mr. Marcy and other candidates. Several times the delegates

ΙΟ

from other States, in particular those from Virginia, went to the New York leader, and told him that if the united vote of New York were thrown for Marcy they would come to his support. At one time such a movement would doubtless have produced Marcy's nomination. But the majority of the delegation was not willing to coerce their colleagues. For that reason the vote of the State was never united.

Governor Seymour, speaking of these events a few years ago, said: "It is quite likely that I there made the greatest error of my life. Had Governor Marcy been the President, we might have avoided the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the fatal consequences of that measure. But, I could not bring myself to throw the vote of a representative against his will."

It is thought that the discussion at Chicago will lead to the abrogation of the unit rule. But there are certain considerations, not obvious at first, in favor of its continuance. The unit rule is an expression of the autonomy of the State. In a Democratic Convention the States and not the districts are represented. It is they who act and not the individual delegates. Besides, the rule adds to the power and influence of the large States. If the rule should be broken New York would not be more potent in a National Convention than New England.

This question was presented at Chicago by

some of the delegates from New York, who were powerfully seconded by gentlemen from other States. Had they succeeded the result of the Convention might have been different. The motion to change the unit rule was, of course, opposed by the friends of Governor Cleveland. After a vigorous debate the motion was defeated by a decisive vote, and it then became quite certain that Governor Cleveland's nomination could not be prevented.

The subject of the platform was also a matter of unusual interest. The action of Congress had strengthened the difference which had always existed in Democratic ranks upon the subject of tariff taxation. The Committee on Resolutions was so organized that, as to the tariff, it was quite equally divided. Mr. Watterson of Kentucky, Mr. Hewitt of New York, and Col. Morrison of Illinois were members of the Committee and represented the tariff reformers. General Butler and Mr. Converse of Ohio represented those who wished to recognize the principle of protection. Mr. Manton Marble, who was the author of the platform of 1876, a public document of unusual merit, and the declaration of principles upon which the party had succeeded at the elections for the only time in a quarter of a century, was present in Chicago and actively assisted the Committee.

The work of the Committee was finally accomplished without compromising the historic position