Madison times. (Tallulah, Madison Parish, La.) 1884-1???, 1884-09-20

- us f1k~es>la sS-,ssT'
and contested the right Of the Demo
cratic nominee elected 20 SAID once
by judicial proceeding, charging the
practice Of fraud and intimidation ana
violence by the Democrats IN said
election, and was selected by the
cancus of the friends Of Hr. Charles J.
BoatIer and
Whereas, these are grave reasons to
distrust the LOYALTY Of said temporary
chairman TO the Democratic party,
and good cause TO suspect him OF 60
ruling as to bring about . split IN the
party in this congressional GistFict
with view TO the success OF q Repub-
iicsn candidate in the approaching
election therefore be it
Resolved, That the rncontested de-
egatss accredited to this convention
proceed TO the exercise Of their inner
emit right to reorganize tho convention
upon a Democratic basis, and that Dr.
q. Med. Brumby be made temporary
chairman Of said convention, and that
q vote be had by parishes whose dele
cations are here uncontested, and that
when the vote Of any parish is contest,
Cd, the vote Of said parish be divided
between the two delegations.
This motion was put and carried by
q vote Of parishes. as follows: Cald.
well, votes; CatahOuta, no vote {;
Claiborne, ho vote: East Carroll, no
vote; West Carroll, votes Frankhn,
Q votes Jackson, 7 votes Lincoln, i
votes; Morehouse, no vote Madison,
votes Ouachita. 81 votes Richiand.
IL votes Tensas, IS votes; Union, no
| vote, Concordia, ii votes-msking
ll4 votes from ten parishes
Tire delegations from she following
parishes refused 10 Vote and to take
part III the reorganization of the con.
yention, and withdrew +. Carroll, Z
votes F; Catahouls, Is votes Claiborne,
! - votes; Morehouse, votes; Ouach-
tia, 81 votes Union. IL votes the CON
, testing delegation from Concordia, ii
votes-making 81 votes.
Here the split becomes firmly
| established, and TIE question 20 be
decided by every mGn is whether
the action Of the King ren in put,
ting DR.. Brumby in the chai: was
q proper, and correct thing to 10.
The King men claim tina. Nj. Ken,
nedy's rulings were arbitrary, and
unjust, and produce one instance
in support Of that claim-that he
sustained the challenge of the right
Of Tcnsas, 20 be represented by g
delegates. i. is \ simple question
and suppositicns of unfairncst
have nothing TO- do with it, neithe,
has the fact Of Mr.. Kennedy'shav.
ing once been republican. The
only question is, had q parish o;
several parishes right to challenge
the representation Of another
parish. If you think not
you necessarily think that The
King men were justifable in thei,
actions, and that King is entitled
TO your support If you thini
that q parish had the right t
challenge the representation o
another parish, you aye bound u
think, logically, that the King
men were wrong in refusing t.
recognize tina. right, and tina
King ia not the man for you e
support. According to the officia
report of the King convention tn
whole cause Of grievance is tn
decision Of Mr.. Kennedy Of tn,
right Of q parish to challenge tn
vote Of another parish. At a,
election any voter has the right t.
challenge the vote Of anyone offer
ing to vote. Dismiss oil theorie
and outside considerations from
! the question and settle that on
point of the right to challenge ant
you are in fair way to arrive q
just conclusion.