The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-10-24
The.DrippinE Springs "OODventi0n,'
49, ~ hat a Deleg ale says Ii b0utit.
Editors Democratic Statesman:

Editors Democratic Statesman:
Ia your paper of tue twentieth inst.
you state that the action OF the Drip
ping Springs convention does not meet
the approval of the mass of Democrats
in Travis county, and Is wholly repu-
dIsted by the Democracy of Blsnco
county; also that the twenty three
delegates of Travis county did not
| sanction it; those of Blspco were I'M
known to 1t, and that five informal
delegates from Austin did the work"
Now, as I was one of the ''informal"del-
egates from Austin "who did thework, I"
it were we'll perhaps that the facts In
connection with that convention should
be generally known. The twenty
three delegates from Austin were ap-
pointed by Major Walton, president
county convention, held last August.
Prior to the meeting of this fotorial
convention at Dripping Springs there
was a good deal Of talk about the adj
visibility of recognizing the claims of
Blanco for the nomination of the repss
resentatiVe. /, for one, was strongly
in favor of selecting candidate from
that county. Hon. A. W. Mansand,
judge county court, Blanco county, was
named as one who would make an excel
lent representative il he would accept.
Judge Mansand formerly resided in
Austin, and is we'll and favoIably
known to many of our citizens, and 1t
was reported that his nomination
would be acceptable to the Democracy
of Blanco county. accordingly wrote
90
He stated in reply that 1t would inter-
tere very materially with his business,
but if the people of his county wanted
him he would serve if elected, but did
not propose to thrust himself forward;
it was post of honor, not of emolu-
ment, and that the office should conse-
queRtly seek the man, not the man
the Office. This settled the matter so
far as Judge Mansand was concerned.
There were scores of applicants who
would ''raise Cain" and work like
beavers if they thought they had the
ghost of a chance for the nomination.
There were three delegates and three
proxies present in person at the con-
vention from Travis county, and one
from Blanco county. The delegate
from Blanco county refused to vote
or act with the conventions; but he
did good deal of talking.
OF the six delegates and prox-
les present. from Travis county, four
were friends Of Mr.. Archer. Two,
myself and another, were opposed to
Mr.. Archer. Tue committee on Gre
dentials reported sixteen of the Travi,
county delegation present in person or
by proxy. Mr.. Archsr's friends held
the proxies of large msj ,rity of these
sixteen delegates, sufficient to elect
him by g tw0-thirds vote, Blauco
county not participating. Mr.. Archer
was put In nominstion-no one else.
/ then moved an adjournment to some
future time and place in Blauco or
Travis county Dripping Springs is in
Hays county,, and stated, as reasons for
my motion, the paucity of numbers
present, the refusal of Blauco county
70 act With rs, and moreover that |
did nos believe the nomination OF
Mr.. Archer would give satisfaction to
she people Of Travis County, that he
would not secure The solid vote Of the
Democrats in this Representative dis
trict. ! had nothing 70 ssy-kn
nothing-dercg4tory to the character
OF Mr.. Archer. Ny remarks were
made in bis presence, and were die
tated solely BY sense Of what I be-
lieved was beat for the success OF our
party IN the coming election and the
bsss interests Of the district The mo
uon to adjourn was losi, proxies voi-
ing. I then. without any authority
whatever, put 10 nomination Col. 7. E.
Sneed. believing that be Weuld poll
the full Democratic vote Of Travis
and B.anc0 eounties. Before the bal
lot WAS taken ! withdrew his name
thers WA no use 10 contssting the
matter further. NJ. Archer wzs GER
tain to Be the. noninee-too many
proxies.