The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-07-03
Tne PRIMARY EIecsaon Qacstion.

4
day morning: # ~
"The committee consis.s ofthirty mem
|bers. OF these, sthree-Mcssrs. Morgensterr
Fox, and Olirer-haYe never been presen
| when the plan was voted upon. Of the otne
twenty seven members, Mr.. Schmidt, Colone
John RI. Guy, Lewis Wagner, W. ID. Ches
Herman, William English; Thomas SMITH
General Bradley T. johnson, Louis Gin ml
! Charles p, Bigger, and w. F. Drinkar!
voted on Tuesday 1ight for the plan OF eiec,
| ing delegates as a substitute for the comm
| tees plan, d. c. Richardson and 5. ID. ful
liam voted against the committees plan "hel
| il was first adopted. r. NJ. Saunders ant
Samuel Maccubbin voted to reconsider I'd
nIau on Monday night. So that the iac
anoears to be that fourteen OF the twenty
seven mem oers of the committee-an actua
majority OF all who have ever Voted upol
the ouestiou-are in ia yor Of the plan 0
eIectiny delegates and opposed to the com
mi.tee's plaD."
| The above statements, with the deduction
derived from them, beingzfHcorrect and cal
| culated to create an erroneous impression
on the public mind, and to prejudice i
against the action Of the City Committee,
ask for space to make the correction.
In the first place, you state that l." the com
| mittee consists of thirty members. OF these
| tbrce-MesSrs. Morgenstcrn, Fox, and Oil
ver-haye never been present when the par
was voted upon" This statements correct
but that all improper inference may not be
drawn from this fact, the writer will state
upon the most reliable and satisfactory au
thority that all OF these three gentlemen ia
u0red the plan as adopted Gy the committee
and would have voted for it if they had been
present. AS you have drawn the attention
of the public to this matter, and published
names, it is due TO the three gentlemen above
named, as well as to the majority Of the com
mittee, that this correction be made.
Your next statement Is that Of the other
twenty seven members, Dir. Schmidt, CHM
mi, Guy. and seven others, voted on Tues.
day night for the plan of electing delegates
as substitute for The Committees plan.
This is the substance Of your statement
Now, l regard it of material Importance to
state that the first two gentlemen named in
this category varied their votes IN such q
manner as to render it douDtiu! what posi-
ton they really occupied.
But, allowing you the advantage OF these
two names claimed first bg one party ana
then by the other), and claiming for jtr.
Richardson that be favored the r.aa Of voting
directly for the Notwithstanding - De
he did only 10 some OF the details OF the
Committees plan-we have the following re-
suit:
In Faror of the Committees Plan :
Messrs. Allen, Coghlan, Curtis, Pickrell.
uulcher, Donly, A. 5. johnson, Styl, Wren,
Richardson, Wade. Morgenstern, Fox, Oil
yer. Riley, Wood, and McRae-17.
Opposed to the Committees Plan: Messrs
Schmidt, Guy, Wagner, Chesterman. B. T.
johnson, English, Smith, Drnkard, Bigger,
Puiam, Saunders, Maccubbin, and Glmml-
13.
Showing majority of .four in favor of the
plan adopted by the committee.
| have made the above statements on good
authority in every instance, and if they be
correct, as am satisfied they are, submit
that they ought to settle forever this much
yeXed question.
A MEMBER OF TIE COMMITTEE.
We are not anxious to discuss these points
What we stated were facts. If any incor-
rect differences were drawn from them that
was not our fault. Nevertheless, we must
notice our correspondents statements. lie
says that 0Ie>srs. Morgcnstern, Oliver, and
Fox are opposed to the plan Of electing del
egates. We said yesterday not word as to
their position. We know not how they
stand; but we have heard that Dir. Oliver
aud Mr.. Morgenstcrn both would rather that
the people should elect the delegates than
that the delegates should be appointed
BY the candidates or the committee.
But they can speak for themselves. Mr.
Richardson voted as we stated. We know
not why. The favors the plan adopted, we
of course drew the wrong inference from his
vote. Mcssrs. Gimmi and Schmidt distinctly
voted on Tuesday night Or General Brad
lev Johnson's substituGe-whicl provided
for the election Of delegates. We suppose
they knew what they We're voting for, and
are of the san.s mind still. They voted upon
the question after full discussion rs to the
relative merits Of the two planS-yotinS for
candidates and voting for delegates-and we
presume voted understandiDsly.
But it is useless to guess at the views OF
men who are here in Richmond. Let them
speak for themselves, and let the question be
"settled forever"