The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-08-25
THE MERITS OF THE BOLT.

THE MERITS OF THE BOLT
Out of chaos came the world
but what shall be the product OF the
wild confusion at the state conven-
ton? The boilers ground their cause
upon the unalterable rights of the mi
nority, the answer of the majority will
doubtless be, those rights are turned
to wrongs when they infringe upon
the rights of the majority. The mi
nority contend their companions were
DISTINGUISHED; the majority answer it
was done according to parliamentary
usage. The minority retort that they
could not be bound by rules they had
no part in making. The case is one
of combined facts and parliamentary
precedent. The facts are that con-
fessed minority had half its forces
made up of contested votes. The
right to seat these voters it is claimed
it could vindicate before an impartial
tribunal, but in the selection of that
tribunal it was to be allow
ed no voice. 1t is not UNI
derstood the minority claimed
it could materially affect the selection
of a temporary chairman, but it was
entitled to q voice in that selection.
The minority, however, was wrong in
insisting upon viva voce vote, when
objection had been raised. For while
every delegate was entitled to vote,
yet outsiders had no such right, and
in that immense hall packed with
humanity it could be asceItained
fairly in no other way than by roll
call of the counties who should be
temporary chairman. What the MI
norlty had a right to complain OF was
the rule of the executive committee
that contesting counties should have
no voice in the temporary proceedings.
That executive committee were elected
by the Hogg convention of two years
ago, and while it is not charged they
are biased in his favor, yet it does not
smack of fairness that they should
prescribe rules to govern in contest
ed race between Hogg and some other
man. Especially is this the
case when it is claimed by the
Hogg leaders he had enough votes
without the contested counties
to secure his nomination by the nee
essary two-thirds, while il required
every one of the contested votes to let
Clark have his one-third in the effort
to defeat Hogg This was the only
ground for minority objection, and
not the denial of the viva vocs vote.
Yet, was there here sufficient reason
for q bolt? 1t must be remembered
the vote was only on the selection of
a temporary chairman, the matter of
forming the different committees was
still with the convention; and though
to let it pass was establishing bad
precedent, the power Of the conven-
tion, the the committee forming was
still in the hands of the senatorial dis
tricts. This being so, some of the best
friends of the Clark movement are
known to condemn the bolt under the
circumstances. If there had been de-
lay, ifthis act of Acknowledgement had
been followed up by others as bad
aud all a part of what has been feared
would happen, then would the cause
of the boilers have been materially
strengthened before the people. Yet
the bolt has occurred, and occasioned
by.a stress of circumstances, it must
be admitted wholly un-Democratic.
The Democracy of the state is in
strange and strained position. What
will be the outcome of the fight?