The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-09-01

WV ohu % euoulu Us allowed TO any
one delegation for every vote such
delegation was entitled to cast upon
the floor of the convention, and furth-
er, that where there was a contesting
delegation from any county, such
badges should be equally divided be-
tween the regular and contesting
delegations. In other words, where
there were two delegations
from county, one reon-
laTly accredited delegation and the
other "bolt," or contesting delega-
ton. The regularly delegation was
onl ~ entitled to one badge for each
vote it was entitled to cast, and the
same privilege was allowed the con-
testing delegation. Thus there were
fifteen counties instructed for Clark
in which there We're Hogg "boltsu
and contesting delegations sent up. the
V We, OF the counties aggregating 129.
Ihese l29 votes were represented by
ABOUT 5OO delegates, elected and &C
credited to the convention by the
democracy of the said counties. By
this edict of Finley and his confeder-
ates 81 of these delegates were to be
excluded from the floor of the conven-
tion and 129 Hogg "boltersn substi-
tuted in their places.
From counties where the Democracy
had instructed for the Hon. George
Clark, and in which the intrigues of
the Hogg dynasty could not effect a
bolt, there were 500 duly accredited
delegates, over one-half of whom were
to be driven from the floor of the con-
vention by this edict of Finley's.
Thus by the unauthorized and des-
potic edict of this
PROTEGEE OF "HOGGISM,u
it was proposed to disfranchise and
exclude from that convention more
than $40 duly accredited Democratic
delegates instructed for George Clark.
A caucus of the representatives of
the Democracy of Texas, composed of
delegates instructed to vote for Hon.
George Clark, and to stand by the
principle of Democracy, was at once
held in Turner's hall, 1t is useless to
say that this caucus was composed of
true and tried Democrats, a majority
of their faces have been seen and their
voices heard in every Democratic con-
vention held since the war.
1t was the unanimous opinion
of this caucus that the &C.
ton of Finley and his confederates,
was without precedent in the history
of Democratic conventions in Texas;
that they, and each of them, held
their credentials and commissions
from the local Democracy of the state,
and not from "Boss" Finley and that
they would comply with the trust i'm
posed in them by their constituency,
and take seat upon the floor of the
convention, without being tagged
with Finley's badge. And they de-
termined with unanimlty that they
would not
SUBMIT TO THE DISFRANCHIsEMENT
nor become party to, or tolerate a
platform in conflict with, or denuncia-
tory of settled Democratic principles.
To this end they confided to Demo-
Gratis, deemed capable, tried and true,
to lead in the execution of their pur-
poses. This done, the caucus in
body, more than thousand strong,
proceeded to the convention hall,
and took their seats without
badges. The convention was called
to order, and when Chairman Finley
announced that the election of tenn
porary chairman was in order, T. j.
Brown nominated j. l.. Sheppard, and
A. L. Matlock nominated Jonathan
Lane. Matlock then moved that the
vote be taken "viva voice." Brown
made the point of order that where
there were two delegates the vote
could not be taken viva voce.
Matlock arose to speak to the point
of order, and the chairman refused to
hear him, but ruled the point we'll
taken. Matlock then appealed from
the ruling of the chair. The chairman
appeal. Matlock then moved div
ision of the house on the election of
the temporary chairman, and was pro-
ceeding to speak to the motion when
Chairman Finley
TURNED HIS BACK ON HIM,
and ordered the secretary of the state
executive committee to call the roll of
counties, saying that the vote would
be taken by counties, in accordance
with the rules prescribed by the ex-
ecutive committee.
A reading of the rules as promul.
gated by the committee was repeat
eddy demanded, which was ignored by
Finley. The point was made that the
executive committee was not author.
lied to make rules for the government
of the convention; that they might
propose rules, but it was the preroga-
tive of the convention to accept or re-
ject them. Finley persistently ignored
the demand to have the rules read to
the convention and the roll call of
counties proceeded, notwithstanding
Matlock had the floor before the roll
call of counties was ordered and had
never yielded it.
When Dallas county was reached a
demand was made of the chairman to
know how the vote of that county was
cast, and then for the first time after
he had ordered the roll call to pro.
coed he answered that the vote had
not been called; that the executive
committee had decided that no county
in which there was a contest should
be permitted to vote. @TH1s
When other counties were passed,
in response to inquiry, 1t was an
nounced that they were contested, but
the demand for information as to