The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-09-15
The plan OF Election.

To the Editors of the Enquirer:
The ENQUIRER of Sunday, 10 the course Oh
an editorial which manifests the right spirit'
says: .,,. ,oo,,ld mt,
hove heen aimed at Mr.. Knight, because we
are convinced that he bad good cause to com
Main of the wrong done bin In the primary
election. not intentional on the part OF tne
committee. but through the faultiness o,
their plan. The complex machinery aoop.ed
by the committee could not fail to work ln-
instice to some one, as it admltted OF no
alternative but combination OF two against
one: and that was exactly the result. ine
voter was compelled either to cast MS oailos
for Messrs. Johnson and Tanner or 70 Vote
for Mr.. Knight alone, and thereby lose DIS
RIGHT to vote for two candidates, wDicn was
renuired by the committee; and through
this Mr.. Knight may have lost many Votes,
Asa friend of harmony and unity alnonss.
Conservatives, I take leave 10 say tuae ~
seems to me that the Enquirer does the CON-
mittee gross Injustice. What was .tnelr
/" complex machinery" Nothing out ah
election for delegates to conVenton' NO No
thing could possibly be more simple. ine
voter was not compelled to vote eitner lot
johnson and Tanner, or for MT. hnisu.
alone. On the contrary, Mr. hnisnt c0u'o
have combined with johnson. or with ran.
ner, or with Wortbam, or with Holiaday, OF
with any other voter in Richmond CITY or
Henrico county, and might haVe had tIcke.s
printed With his name and anybody eises
upon them. The committee might have re-
aured each voter to vote for two senators 10
prevent "single shots -; but II dia nol: IL
allowed every voter the privilege OF voting,
en- the one hand, for delegates either for
Johnson. or for Tanner, or for Knight, sepa-
ratelv. and on the other hand, of voting Tor
delegates for Knight and Tanner, or Knight
and johnson. or Tanner and johnson. There
was no machinery" of any sort. "com-
pley" or other. Each voter was allowed 10
vote absolutely as he pleased.
But it may be said that Johnson's and Tan.
ner,s friends arould vote together. They
wouldn't agree to vote for Knight and Tan
ner or Knight and johnson. Well, who
could help that9 Not the City Committee,
certainly. The voters surely would have
voted thus if they had preferred so to vote.
They bad an uncontrolled choice amongst
tine candidates, and if they didn't like any OF
the candidates they could have made up
ticket to suit themselves. There was ahso-
lutely 20 restriction of any sort put upon
anv voter. To say that nobody could be
| found 10 run upon Colonel Knights ticket
| who was strong enough to defeat the comD!-
nation (if there was one) between johnson
and Tanner is to say that johnson aud Tan
ner were the choice of the people.
/ ask the Enquirer, which repeat, mani
tests the true spirit Of good Conservative,
and l ask the public to look into this matter
for themselves. | AM confident that VINO.
ever does so will soon see that the plan Oh
the committee was as fair as any that ever
was adopted in Virginia or elsewhere. Con-
veptions have always been held; the only
change made was to allow the people to
choose the delegates instead OF having them
appointed at ward meetings..
Look at the last Senatorial Convention.
To it there were elected thirty-six delegates
for Bradley T. johnson, thirty.6ve for w.
G. Darlington, and fifteen for A. S. McRae {;
vet Mr.. McRae was nominated. Who ever
said that that was an unfair convention or
censured the City Committee because of the
action of the convention? johnson and Car
rinyton went at once manfully into the fight
for McRae. Suppose the last Senatorial
Convention had thus set at naUght The VIII
or the people, then, indeed, Colonel Knight
might have complained. But johnson did
not COMPLAIN last year. How blind we are
when our prtjudices inerpose between US
and truth.
Again: The call upon Johnson had
about as many (perbaps more) nlmes to 1t
az the whole vote received by COloDeI
Knight-over 1000 names. Are those
names to be divided By two! And does not
this fact also viudicate the City Commit
tee?
Finally: There were 800 votes cast in
the primary election. Or these 2SS declined
to vote for anybody for senator or as sena-
torial delegates. Who are these 2SS votes to
be counted for? Clearly for the choice OF
the Convention. They were cast by old.
fashioned people, who wished delegates to
90 unnstructed. Adding these votes to he
| 1884 received by the Conservative nominees
and they count 2, 222 votes for these romi-
nees as against Colonel Knight. This fact
also vndicates the City Committees plan.
| affirm that the City Committee had no
preferences. We should have been as well
satisfied with the nomination OF Knight as
| we IRE with that Of johnson or Tanner, and
would have worked as hard for bis election.
But the Convention has done its work, and
we can't undo it. We are for Crump, hel-
lam, Dooley, Gilman, Williams, johnson.
| Tanner, and WORKMAN.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
| w. F. DRIEKARD,
Assistant Superintendent City Conservative
| Committee.
P. S. Colonel John 81. Guy, the superin-