Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-02-17
THE CANDIDATE.
John Moriarty the Regular
Nominee
OF THE SECOND WARD CAUCUS.
Opinions of those Who Are Well
Versed in the Rules in the
Matter.

Second ward voters yesterday was the an
nouncement that R. A. Ling, who had been
q candidate for nomination at the Demo
cratic caucus on Wednesday night, consid-
cred that he was in reality nominee, and
had announced his intention OF running for
election. Mr.. Ling claims that the caucus
was in reality primary and that the ch oice
of the nominee was to have been determined
by the same rules which govern primaries;
in other words, that having received plur-
atty of the votes cast on the first ballot he
should have been declared the nominee and
the meeting adjourned. This was not the
case, however. There were three ballots
taken, and on the third Mr.. John Moriarty,
having received majority of the votes cast,
first ballot the vote stood: Moriarty 80, Ling
lis and schumacher, As. The second bal
lot stood, Moriarity. 75,, Ling 73, and Schu-
macher 40. The third bal stood, Nor
after the result of the first ballot had been
announced, his friends, supposing him to
be the choice left the hall and when the
second bal OF was taken he was short just
He based his claim to the nomination how
ever, ON the fact that he had received a
plurality Of votes on the first ballot.
Mr.. Ling's opinion in regard to the meth
inee seems to be held only by himself and
friends, and from statements of othe s who
were present at the caucus it appears that
at the end of the first ballot Mr.. Ling made
no objection to q second ballot being taken.
representative of the HERALD called
upon Mr.. G. L. Northcrafts, who was chair
man OF the caucus to ascertain his views
on the subject. Mr.. Northcrafts said that it
was necessary to obtain majority of the
votes cast, before choice could be an
nOuneed in any caucus. This was under
stood to be the rule by everybody so far as
he knew and there had been 10 objection
to continuing the balloting at the
the matter OF dropping the candidates who
received the fewest votes was discussed, but
that was the only thing which came up
Mr.. Ling had not objected TO the second
ballot, and If his friends had departed, that
was his loss MFR. Northcrafts was positive
in his statement tn at he was friend TO all
candidates and had favored none in particu-
lar. He has ruled according to the usage in
all caucuSSeS.
Postmaster, E. A. Preuss, who was also
present at the caucus, was next seen and
stated that in his opinion Mr.. Moriarty was
the regular nominee ofthe caucus. Accord
ing to his idea OF the usages at caucusses it
requires majority vote to dec de upon the
nominee. Toe question as to whether the
majority or the. plurality rule should pre-
vail, did not come up and according to his
recollection Mr.. Ling had been present
when the second ballot was called.
Mr.. Il. L. McGregor, who was present at
the time, and who placed Mr. Schumacher
in nomination. confirmed the statement of
Mr.. Preuss that Mr.. Ling had been present
and had not objected to the second ballot
being taken.
Dr., ]. s. Crawford was next called upon,
and thought that according to rule Mr.. Ling
should have been declared the nominee
after the first ballot. If he had been chair
man he would have declared Mr. Ling the
nominee after the FIRST ballot. He had been
present part Of the time during the fl st
ballot, but had depa,ted before the result
ever, that if M. Ling had tacitly consented
to the second ballot by not objecting, then
Mr.. Ling had no ground for claiming that
he was the nominee. Mr.. Ling should have
nounced.
Lieutenant-Governor Stephen NJ. White
was too busy to give an opinion on the
Supervisor T, E. Rowan thought that Mr..
Ling should have been declared the nomi-
nee at the end of the first ballot. In his
opinion plurality only was necessary to q
choice, not majO ity.
H. W. Patton was next seen and said: II
placed Mr.. Moriarty in nomination and
watched the result of the ballot with great
deal Of interest Mr.. Ling received lis
votes, Mr.. Moriarty 80 votes and Mr.. Schu-
after consultation with Mr.. Schumacher,
that the person RECEIVING the lowest mum
ber of votes should be dropped think
also understood that the lowest candidate
the first ballotwas announced moved that
be dropped and that the caucus pro,
ceed to take another ballot. Mr.. Ling
was standing near me when ! made this
motion and no protest emanated from him.
Then the friends of Mr.. Schumacher came
to me and said that they wanted him to
stand for another ballot. This was perfectly
to me and ballot was taken.
This time Mr.. Moriarty was in the lead, Mr..
Ling next and Mr.. Schumacher the lowest.
Mr. Schumacher was then withdrawn by
Mr.. McGregOr and on the last ballot Mr..
NOriarty received majority of all the votes
cast, and the Chairman announced that Mr..
Moriarty was the nominee Of the caucus.
Hon. X F, Del Valle was asked to give his
opinion as to- whom was nominated for
Counc Imam in the Second Ward at the
caucus held on, Wednesday evening. Mr.
Del Vale who probably knows more
about parliamentary law than any man
in Southern California gave the fol
lowing opinion in favor Of Mr.. Moriarty
1.-THE rules laid down by all writers on par
liamentary law is: that the majority should
govern, when a meeting ia held which is.
not one of an organized society, council o.
deliberatlve assembly, in the absence of any
understanding or rule adopted by the meet
determine any question, the majority of
those present decide all questions.
conventions of palties follow the same
rule, requiring majority of the votes cast
to decide as to who is entitled to nOmina-
ton. The reason and wisdom OF the rule
are clearly shown by the fact that if a
plurality were to decide in the absence OF
all rules propositions submitted, ma
jority of those pr, sent could reconsider the
acLiOn Of the plurality.
"The reason why a plurality elects as to
the choice between candidates in any cleo
ti0n by the people Ia, that there being a
of parties and often numerous
mo- other system could be re-
sorted to without great detrimeut to the
people.
Robert, on parliamentary law, lays down
the principle that in the selection of officers
for meeting where several names have
been placed in nomination, each name
shall be called separately, and the one re-
ceiving the majority vote of those present
shall be declared the one elected. Other
writers on this question follow out the
same idea and give the reasons for the rule,
which is: the expression of the will of the
majority. $50,
B. A. Ling the chosen nominee of the con-
ventiOn Or meeting held on February 18th,
1888, at which the following vote was cast:
Ling lis, MOriayty 80, Schumacher As, on
the first ballot; and Moriarty on q subse-
Quent ballot having received a majority of
the votes asst If the, premises be correct,
my answer is that he Is not, IN my opinion,
for the reason that it requires majority
vote OF those present and voting to nOmin-
ate."