The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1888-06-07

ere to be avoided as dangerous.
june7-
that the power of the chairman would be
curtalled, and to oppose the unit rule.
The selection Of delegates to the conven-
ton had not begun, aud he called upon all
Republicans of Virginia who agreed with
his views to select delegates to that con-
vention opposed to the unit rule ard in
favor of changes in the plan of organiza-
ton. II e publication of that letter struck
the key note of great feeling among the
people. From all portions OF the State,
and from nearly every Republican journal
in Virginia came an Affirmative response.
The friends of the State chairman greeted
this public expression not as that of t ell
low Republican, equally entitled with
themselves to have his views of party pol
icy. but as evidence Of intended desertiOn,
and as an assault upon the party. In due
time the chairman, responding to the let
ter, treated it throughout as reasonable
and insignificant statement, and showed a
determination to insist on the unit rule,
cling to the plan of organization. and crush
out the opponents of both. That he had
the light to contend in every legitimate
way for the supremacy of his views no
fair-minded person 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.
haunting the advocate of the change of the
plan of organization with the fact that he
might not be able to reach the convention.
How safely the chairman might calculate
on his power to carry out this threat. with
the plan of organization at his back, the
sequel discovered.
From that time issue was joined between
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 chair
men were in accord with the views of the
State chairman-and being his appointees,
they were his advocates in a great majority
of counties and citieS-their whole influ-
ence was thrown in his favor in the way
the meetings were called and and held and
certified. In some instances, under the
powers vested by the plan of organization,
he removed obnoxious ohairmen and placed
in their places, on the eve of the election
of delegates, others in accord with him
self. The most conspicuous instance Of
this sort of conduct was in the county OF
Shenandoah where the old chairman was
removed three days before the county con-
yentiOn was to meet and new chairman
appointed.
The Republicans of the county were so
indignant that they refused to recognize
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 be-
cause not IN accord with the views of the
State chairman. The calls for conventions
were so framed that the certificates of del
egates had to be countersigned by the
chairman he had appointed, to give the
made out the rolls of the State and district
conventions. So arbitrary was the con
duct of the chairman, that when the con-
vention met, Republican member of
Congress holding the proxy of Highland
county, and himself a contestant for 3
seat, was excluded from the convention
hall by the orders of the chairman as to
admission. while many of the chairman 8
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 disadvantage.
and were doubtless deprived of many dele
gates in cases where there were no cons
tests. Nor is it surprising that when the
elections for delegates were completed
there were 112 contested delegates out of
693, or that all his friends were placed on
the roll with the prin,a facie certificate of
L.: ol,o 1x,l.i IN IN
were excluded, except in the single In.
stance of the Richmond delegation.
We cannot 90 into the details of facts as
to all these contested delegations. but the
Norfolk county, Portsmouth, Shenandoah.
Lynchburg, Augusta. Alexandria. and
Richmond cases were the most glaring. In
the six first named cases it was manifest
that the opponents of the unit rule and
plan of organization were in an OverWhelm-
ing majority at the meetings where dele
gates VT re chosen, and that their chosen
delegates had been tricked out of the
county ohairman's certificates either by
the chairman himself or other persons
working with him. Yet when the claims
of these honest delegates were presented
against the parties holding the certificates,
every one of them were denied all recog-
milton. and those holding the county chair
Uldu s CPItllCdGoS WtIC dllOWcu W EeUdlu
their seats undisputed. On the other
hand, in dealing with the Richmond dele
CATION, delegation of twenty-six. con
trolling a Congressional district and two
delegates to Chicago, a delegation as to
WHICH there was no real question, the con-
testants, mere band of boilers, shown to
he less than one.third of the convention
from which they bolted, were seated as of
equal dignity with the lawful delegates,
so as to destroy their votes. This manip-
ulation of the Richmond delegation, con.
trolling a. it cid the whole Third Congress
sional district, was the most important
and at same time the most outrageous of
all the high-handed proceedings had by
means of the plan of organization. What
was done there was not different in princi-
pie from what was done elsewhere. but as
it effected more for the perpetrators we will
use 1t to illustrate. BY the terms of the
call for conventions, the representatives
the Third Congressional district mum bered
&c, distributed as follows Richmond city.
26; Henrco county, 10: Goochland, I;
King William. 5; Chester field 5; Hanover,
I; New Kent, 8; Manchester, 3.
There is no doubt whatever of the fact,
that of the lawfully elected delegates from
the DISTRICT, forty i've wfre opposed to
the unit rule and plan of organization.
while but twenty one were in favor of
either, and Of those twenty one at least
sigteen were secured through the influence
OF county AND city chairmen. Yet. with
this beggarly strength, the convention of
the Third district was so manipulated that
The twenty one friends of the unit rule
and plan of organization prevailed. A
fraudulent contest of the twenty six dele
gates from Richmond was trumpet up,