St. Landry democrat., 1886-08-28


bolt in Rapides as case in point, justi-
flying Mr.. Estilette's bolt. The two
cases are materially different. In RAJ
pides the boiling committee acted i'm
mediately after the adjournment of the
convention, while Mr.. Estilette and his
committee Gf he has got one) have
slept upon their alleged rights for two
years. Neither did the chairman of the
Rapides boilers stultify himself by
attempting to repudiate an organiza
ton which he himself had expressly
recognized.
For the editication of our confrere and
Mr.. Estilette we submit the following
pertinent questions copied from the
Alexandria Weekly Town Talk of
August 21st.
LIST. Is it really a fact that it has
D." been the custom to notify the people
" through the call for Convention or
Mass Meeting, that an Executive Com
"mittee would be appointed by that
" Convention or Mass Meeting?
"2nd. Is the action of the people in
Convention assembled, governed,
guided and restricted to the call of
" the Executive Committee
" 3D.. Is it fact that the people de-
" rive their authority to act from tie
=" Executive Committee
4th- If this be true, does not the
Committee become the masters i'll
" stead of the servants of the people |?
10Th. If an Executive Committee
"can not be appointed or changed unless
" that object is stated in the call, could
t" not the old Committee hold on always
" if they saw fit to do so, by never stat
ling in the call that Committee would
" be appointed
Mr. Estilette says of the convention
"of September Sd. 1884:
They were clothed with limited
powers. Whatever they did outside
of their mandate they did not as
representatives of the Democratic
party, but us individuals.
Anything done out side the ex-
pressed powers conferred, is the act
of delegates as individuals and of no
" binding effect on the democratic par
:" ty of st. Landry
The Rapides boilers reason in a SINH
lar strain. Quoting from their mani
festo, their assertion that the conven-
ton had no authority to reorganize
the party, that the convention, after
choosing delegates to the congressional
convention. "had done rhat Hey were
delegated to do,'' the Weekly Town
Talk concludes its incisive criticism
with the following mortal stroke.
Who had done what they were dele
" gated to do? Who delegated them
6 to do it? Vas it the Convention that
9 had done all it was delegated to do.
" and was it the Committee who dele
g gated certain specified powers to the
. Convention, beyond which it could not
" go? Such doctrine will doubtless
" put the people to thinking, coming as
s. 1t does from IA Committee of States
So men, who represent all elements Of
$ the Democratic party, are actuated
$ by no personal feelings; are not as
- plrants for office, nor expect promo
'' ton at the hands OF the party This |
IS is not then the statement of a politi |
Is clan seeking promotion made in the
Is heat of debate, but it is cold blood |
. ed deliberate statement on the part
OF the detunct Committee, that the |
8 people can do nothing save what the |
g members of that Committee autho-
IS rize them to do. That they are the
masters instead of the servants of the |
8 Democratic party. This may account
. for the great many things not hereto
fore understood. We can hardly
: blame men who think they hold such
unlimited power for not taxing their
walking papers very gracefully.
With them the issue is indeed des-
'perate.
1t this doctrine be correct, then
why can not Committee when ap-
pointed hold their positions during
the life time of its members. All
that is necessary, is never to autho-
rize the people to put them out.
They are more powerful than the
President OF the United States. The
people don't wait for him to authorize
them to put him out of office.