Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1886-09-03
lC0MMUNICATED
A Review Of the Alexandria Dcmo-
cratic Convention for the Eighth
Congressional District.

assembled and dlourned-ROthing accom-
plished
The convention assembled August the 9th
and sat the 9Th, Oh and 7th until midnight;
after recess, from midnight August eth 20
midday August 25th, again met TO adjourn
sine die on the morning Of The Goth Of Au-
gust, the adjournment determined upon by
a vote ayes $3.50, noes 7276 The people de.
mand reason for this conduct upon the
part Of their delegates, and satisfactory rea-
son they must have.
Let them read between the lines, and find
in the following narrative Of "facts," and
facts are stubborn things, the explanation.
Four gentlemen, before the convention as
sembled, announced themselves candidates
for the nomination-Lee Of Fairfax, Foster
of Loudoun, Meredith Of Prince William,
aud Hume of Alexandria county-and each
was present in the city of Alexandria, with
established headquarters" In the outset,
the contest was over the rule of action for
the convention in making the nom.
nation should it be by "maiority''
or y two-thirds majority?" The form
er rule was advocated by Mr.. Scott,
of Fauquer, and the latter by Mr.. VIM. w.
Scott, of Orange. The vote stood, for the
committees report the two-thirds rulel--
Loudoun 1858, Fauquier 900, Fairfax 900,
Alexandria city 1925, Alexandria county
1870, Culpeper ia, Orange 1856, Prince vii.
liam 1249 and King George 500; total 10, 1856.
Against the report two. thirds rule)-Fau-
quier 100, Louisa 1857, Culpeper 500, Stat
ford go, Alexandria county 50, Fairfax
100; total G052, all Of whom voted for Lee.
A glance at these figures and the ballots
show that Lees friends divided, but his op-
ponents, The minority candidates, were united,
and hence the subsequent deadlock" Dur
ing the sessions of the convention Lees sup
porters made effort after effort to remove
the obstruction to a nomination.; time and
again they appealed to the convention to
rescind or suspend the two. thirds rule
A. G. Smith, J. F. Rixey, Col. Waller, Mr..
Winston, a. D. Payne and others, in turn,
made trial, but to no purpose-"ths consoi-
idated minority" would not move.
Meredith, though voted for, WAS not put
before the convention by nominating speech
until the second day, the SD being his first
ballot. He received 2771 votes, Foster $500,
and Lee 1907.
On the 32d ballot Lee received 1852 votes,
Foster 4165, and Hume 3577, o majority of
the votes cast being for Lee.
On the Seth and list ballots the combined
votes of Foster and Hume were concentrated
upon Meredith and thereby gave TO him u
majority. Tho same tactics" with like
success, was tried upon Foster, but, with
rare exceptions Lee had and held decided
majority Of the votes cast. Witness the fol-
J lowing ballots, viz:
l44th, Lee 1887, Foster 594S; 145th, Lee
9,3l1, Meredith 1884; 172d, Lee $3.50, Mere
dith 1895; 1921. Lee S,567, Meredith 779S ::
1881, Lee 1919, Foster 1890; 194th, Lee
S667, Nico 7G9S; l95th, Lee 1915, Foster
1880 l96th, Lee S267, Meredith SO9S; 18th,
Lee S4S2, Foster 1888 10Sth, Lee $500,
Meredith 1886 :; l99th, Lee S591, Foster 1914;
2O0th, Lee $3.50. Meredith 1896; 2O1st, Lee
1891, Foster, 1874 202d, Lee 1850, Meredith
1896; 204lh, Lee $50, Foster 1895 205th,
Lee 1898, Hume 1912; 20Gth, Lee $3.50,
Meredith 1906; Goth, Lee S6S6, Foster
1879.
Thus, eighteen times, in hand to hand con-
| test, fret with one, and then another of his
opponents, M erejith, Hume and Foster, Lee
| came forth victor by handsome majorities.
But in the language of Mr.. Nicol, Mere
| dith's leader, the minority candidates "stocd
| like stone wall"
1t is for the people of the district to pass
judgment upon this unllinching opposition
| 10 the will of the MT ority, and to the peo-
| pie each of the candidates has appealed.
| Let the people speak, and so speak as not
| TO be misunderstood This is their business,
| the actors, candidates and delegates, their
agents and servants and must do their will.
That this action damages the democratic
party, tends to DISCRIMINATION aud defeat
and is a sweet morsel for our enemies no
| one can doubt. II he does then read the
| interview with Congressman Brady Ma.
homes henchman-as reported in the Wash
lneton Republican of August 10Th, and
be convinced. The Sth district holds no
longer Clarke, Frederick and Warren, hut
| i'll their stead King George, Louisa and
Stafford, where the lnAj orities are oltenest
against us. If we divide we must suffer
defeat, and il we war unon each other we
| divide. Defeat means "Muhoncism" for this
district aud its control by this unprincipled
| demagogue-in fact the loss Of all that we
have won under the leadership of John $.
Barbour. The people must not permit "per-
| sonal ambition" TO subject them to such
hazard.
The propositions from the midnight con.
| ference between the candidates and their &C.
| lected friends, each and all, in our opinion
| were properly rejected.
The demand that Lee should retire was
unreasonable and unjust, even though he re-
| tired TO give the nomination to Hon. John s.
| Barbour. Mr. Barbour was not before the
| convention nor ia the field. He had posi-
lively refused the use of his name TO the
convention, and unquestionably meant what
he said. 1T was unfair to him and unkind
| to Lee and his friends to force an issue be-
tween Barbour and Lee. Indeed, to our
mind, the ballot taken shows that the prop
ositon was ruse and had no foundation in
| fact. Mark the votes OF Prince William.
Loudoun and Alexandria City! "In sOtido"
they had supported Foster, Meredith and
Hume. Why, then, did the not 20 "in
| SolidO" for Mr.. Barbour? His candidacy
was their proposition.
We say simply because they did not want
him. The vote stood Barbour, 7S0l Lee
| S404.
If the combination was TO kill off Lee why
did not the supporters of 1.-The minority can
| didates" break 1.-THE deadlock" by nomi-
| mating some one else, for instance, that
good, sterling man. faithful democrat and
gallant cavalier, Alex. D. Payne, of Fau-
quier? The opportunity was offered time