Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1888-06-08


that letter struck the keynote OF a great
feeling among the people. From all
portions Of the state, and from nearly
every Republican journal in Virginia
came an affirmative response. Inc
friends OF the state chairman greeted
this public expression not as that OF a
fellow-republican equally entitled with
themselves to have his views OF party
policy but a. evidence OF intended de-
sertion, and as an assault upon the party.
I'm due time the chairman, responding TO
the letter, treated it throughout As
reasonable and insignificant statement,
and showed determination to insist on
the unit rule, cling to the plan Of organl-
zation and crush ont the opponents OF
both. That he had the right 10 contend
in every Legitimate way for the suprem-
acy Of his views no fair-minded per-
son can deny. But the answer OF the
chairman plainly showed that even that
early in the controversy he understood
the strength Of his powers with the party
machinery in his hands, for he clearly
indicated his purpose to Use it, taunting
the advocate Of the change Of the plan
Of organization with the fact that he
might not be able to reach the cOnyen-
ton. How safely the chairman might
calculate on his power 10 carry ont this
threat, with the plan Of organization at
his back, the sequel discovered.
From that time issue was joined be-
tween the state chairman and his friends
on the one hand and the opponents Of
the unit rule and plan Of organization on
the other.
From that time the outrageous power
Of the plan Of organization, thrown with
full force, was demonstrated.
In the elections for delegates to the
state and district conventions all over
the state. wherever the county or city
charmcn were in accord with the views
Of the state chat rman--and being his APP
pOntec,, they were his advocates in
great majority Of counties and cities
their whole influence was thrown in his
favor in the way the meetings were call
ed and held and certified. In some in
stances, under the powers vested by the
plan Of organization, he removed ObnoX-
iOus chairmen and placed in their places,
on the eve Of the election Of delegates,
others in accord with himself. The most
conspicuous instance Of this sort OF con
duct was i'm the county Of Shenandoah
where the old chairman was removed
three days before the county convention
wa, 10 meet. and new chairman APP
pointed.
The Republicans Of the county were
so indignant that they refused to recog-
nizc his call and assembled under the
call OF the old chairman. Yet the few
who met with the new chairman were
recognized and seated, while the great
body Of the Republicans Of the county,
headed by a United States senator, were
excluded because not in accord with the
views OF the state chairman. The calls
for conventions were 50 framed that
the certificates OF delegates had to be
countersigned by the chairman he APP
pointed, to give the delegate prima
tacie right. lie himself made ont the
rolls OF the state and district cOnyen-
tons. SO arbitrary was the conduct Of
the chairman that when the convention
met. Republican member OF congress
holding the proxy Of Highland county
and himself contestant for n seat, was
excluded from the Convention Hall by
sion, while many Of the chairman's
friends, not delegates, were admitted.
And thus it was, at the outset, that his
opponents upon the unit rule and plan
OF organization were at every disadyan-
tagc and were doubtless deprived OF
many delegates in cases where there
were no contests. Nor is it surprising
that when the elections OF delegates
were completed there were ll2 contested
delegates out Of 6s3, or that all his
friends were placed on the roll with the
prima fdcie certificate Of his chairmen,
while those opposed to his were eXclud-
ed, except in the single instance Of the
Richmond delegation.
We cannot 90 INTO the details Of facts
as to all these contested delegations, but
the Norfolk county, Portsmouth, Shen-
andoah, Lynchburg, Augusta, AleXan-
drla and Richmond cases were most glar-
ing. In the six first named cases it was
manifest that the opponents of the unit
rule and plan of organization were in
an overwhelming majority at the meet
ings where delegates were chosen, and
that their chosen delegates had been
tricked out OF the county chairman's GER
tiiicates either by the chairman himself
or other persons working with him. Yet
when the claims Of these honest dele
gates were presented against the parties
holding the certificates, every one Of
them were denied all recognition and
those holding the county chairman's GER
tiiicates were allowed to retain their
seats undisputcd. On the other hand,
in dealing with the Richmond delega-
ton, a delegation oftwenty-siX, controll-
ing a congressional district and two del
egatcs to Chicago, a delegation as to
which there was 10 real question, the
contestants, mere band OF boilers,
shown to be less than one One-third OF |
the convention from which they bOlted, |
were seated rs OF equal dignity with the |
lawful delegates, 50 As 10 destroy their |
votes. The manipulation Of the Rich
mond delegation, controlling as it did
the whole third congressional district,
was the most important and at the same |
time the most outrageous Of all the high
handed proceedings had by means OF the
plan or organization. What was done
there was not different in principle from
iected more for the perpetrators we will
use il to Illustrate BY the terms Of the
call for the conventions, the representa-
lives in the state and district conventions
from the third congressional district
numbered GG, distributed rs follows
Richmond city, % Henrico county, 10;
ioochland, Z; King William, > ; Ches-
erlield, .; Hanover, 7; New Kent, 3
3.
There Is no doubt whatever Of the fact
hat OF the lawfully elected delegates
rom that district fOrty-iiye were OPP
posed to the unit rule and plan OF organ
zatiOn while but twenty-One were in
avor OF either, and Of those twenty-One
It least sixteen were secured through the
Of county and city chairmen.-
But with this beggarly strength the con-
iention OF the third district was so ma
lipulated that the twenty-one friends OF
he unit rule and plan Of organization
prevailed. A fraudulent contest OF the
wenty-six delegates from Richmond was
rumped up, and it is charged that it was
lOno by the procurment and with the
.Onniyance OF the state chairman. On
he question Of their own seats the TWEEN
y-,iX delegates from Richmond could
lot, Of course, vote, and deducting them
rom the forty-tivo opponents Of the unit
gllc but nineteen were left, so that the
wenty-one friends OF the unit rule and
)lan Of organization were in majority
II two. These twenty-One did not have
he courage to openly rob the lawful
Richmond delegates OF their seats, but
~ vote OF 81 to 10 admitted the con-
esting Richmond delegation TO an equal
'Otc with those seated. Ii was the same
hing as kicking them out. 1t utterly
the vote OF the lawful dele
rates from Richmond, and LETT the twen-
y-one friends OF the unit rule in control.
The proposition was an insult to the in
diligence Of the lawful Richmond dele
rates. rs well rs an outrage upon their
condiments AMI fbaV 1aponnnab fha /