Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-15
The Norfolk Troubles.

We have NOT interfered except ne Gnicus
eVrioc. so 10 speak, IN the Troubles now
threatening to result In the defeat OF the
Democratic party in Norfolk at the election
OF next week. Twelve years ago we
had similar troubles in the Demo-
cratic party IN this city. A primary
election bad been held for a position
which Il j. not necessary now to
name, and charges had been made that the
candidate receiving the nomination had not
received It Justly. The City Central Com
mittee was asked 10 reopen the question, and
see that Justice was done 20 tho several candi-
dates. But the committee decided 10 let mat
tcrs driit. WEI do not recollect all the facts IN
the case, but we know that this writer, who
was chairman Of the City Committee at that
time, was rather indignant than otherwise at
the proposition to Interfere with the returns
az the primary election, and voted with the
Others OF the committee who sympathiZed
with him u that feeling. But we were after
wards convinced that the returns ought to
have been oVerhauled. We speak, there
fore, from experience when we counsel our
Norfolk friends 10 reopen the returns OF
their primary election II such action is
necessary either to satisfy the voters or TO do
Justice to the voters and the candidates.
Some Of our state exchanges oppose the
proposition (which has been rejected by the
"People's Democratic Committed y to aSkthe
Democratic state Executive Committee to
decide the questions in dispute. They |
ray very truly that the State Execu- |
tive Committee has no right TO de- |
eide such disputes. Nobody claims that /
II has. But this Is one OF those things /
which NAV be done by unanimous consent. /
a hundred members Of the House OF Repre- /
tCnta,iycS have no right to enact laws. or /
pass bills, or appropriate the peoples mo-
ney. But a hundred members often do all
these things by unanimous consent. So in
the case under considefstion-ii in Norfolk
the regular Democratic Committee and
the Peoples Democratic Committee had both
agreed to ask the state Executive Committee
10 decide all the matters IN dispute between
them no good reason could have been gwen
why the State Committee shorld not have
performed that service IN the interest Of the
Democratic party Of Norfolk.
But. rs We have said, the Peoples Demo
cratic Committee refused to concur in the
proposition. This refusal renders ii unwise
and imp0llcc, not TO say impossible, for the
State Executive Committee TO interfere, and
leaves the troubles just a. they were before
that proposition was made.
hot i 70 no XUbfob |
side is to yield the point? The Democrats
who have proved, or honestly believe they
have proved. that large number Of votes cast
for their fAvorte candidate were not
counted for him cannot be expected
10 scquicsce in the result. nor TO vote for
candidate who they firmly believe was de-
ieated in the PRIMARY election. On the sur
face at least no question Of principle sppesrs
to be involved. A new primary election
would wrong nobody. On the contrary, It
would, we suppose, call ont under the cir
large vote and register the
wishes Of the Democratic masses. Whichever
for mayor was honestly chosen
ct the first primary election would. we take
it, be chosen again. II not, why not? We
cannot imagine that the Democratic voters Of
n Orioik have so committed themselves to
the one or the other candidate that they are
not open TO conviction and willing to let
Justice he done at whatever cost. But il
they are in that frame OF mind the State Ex-
ecuuye Committee and all other persons, (
whether in or out Of Norfolk, might as well
keen their advice TO themselves.
We do not know either candidate for mayor
IN Norfolk. and have no choice as between
them. We desire, however, that the one
shall be nominated whom the voters prefers
We do not claim that we are as well qualified
rs "a Jury Of the vicinage" to decide the
points at issue, but only that a new venire !
from another city or county I,
might be free from local preiudices and local ,
and iealousies excited by
weeks Of unfriendly disputation.