Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-10-11

Clark men. and no defense OF inc acllOu
OF the executive committee, but Il e
pitiful "begging OF the question: The
question Is not one Of expedience and
convenience, butoi right aud principle.
The credentials OF the delegates were
their written power oi attorney 10 en-
ter the hall and represent their consti-
tutents, and their constituents did not
afilx a condition 70 that power, that a
badge should be necessary 70 give COM
pleteness and effectiveness 70 such cre-
dentials; and this being true, neither
the executive committee nor any other
organization or body on earth had the
right or power to atilx such conditions
thereto or 10 lay any such require
ments on any man holding such creden-
tials.
The attempt to do 50 was not justified
by the requirements Of the situation,
was ultra wires or beyond the power Of
the executive committee, and was in
defensible usurpation OF authority.
The executive committee could with
equal right have declared that the deli
egates should come bare-footed or bare
headed or clad In ''russet and hose.
This 10 my mind Is so incontrovertibly
true that cannot conceive how any fair
minded man can deny it. In this con-
nection | state as proposition Of law,
which challenge any man, lawyer, or
lAymen, none barred 20 refute:
That the hall having been set apart
to the delegates OF that convention,
every delegate holding credentials as
such, had the right TO enter it, and II
his right OF entrance at the proper
hour, though he bad no badge or sem
blance Of one, was resisted by the police
or any other power, such delegate had
the right TO use such degree OF force as
was necessary 10 overcome such resis-
lance, and II having attempted to do so,
such delegate was assaulted by police
man or any other man in such a way as
to put him in danger Of death or ser-
ious or bodily injury, and thereupon
such delegate had slain such policeman
or other party 80 assaulting him, the
act would have been
UNSUITABLE HOMICIDE,
And any honest judge who knew the
law would have so declared IL.
This being true 1t inevitably follows
that the requirement to procure a
badge as a condition precedent TO en-
tering the hall was unauthorized and
unlawful, and trespass upon the rights
OF those so excluded and their consti-
tuents, which not only justified them
in assembling elsewhere, but deprived
Of any binding force the action Of the
convention which endorsed sugA tres
pass.
II the delegates favorable TO Judge
Clark and when no unlawful obstacle
was placed In their way, declined to
onter the convention, they would have
been bound by It's action, but 10 ex-
clude them as was done, because they
refused TO submit TO requirement TINT
no earthly authority had the power or
right 20 place on them, was equivalent
to exc uding them by force, which was
in fact done, and this being true large
part OF the Democracy OF Texas was nm.
lawfully disiranchised and denied rep.
resentation and every act of the
power house, convention thereafter
was illegal and void and binding on no
man, nor oven persuasion.
am not sure and hence do not assert
II positively, but II Irocollect Alright the
Houston Post, the morning after Cow
ornor Hogg was nominated, conpratu-
lated Itself upon the accuracy Of It's fig
ures and the correctness OF It's conclu.
sions that Governor HOgg did not of
the full convention have the necessnrv
two-thirds, and II this was true those
responsible for the forcible exclusion of
the Democrats who met at Turner hall
cannot undera familiar principle OF law
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR OWN
WRONG"
TO bring about result which other-
Wise could not have been ACCOMPLISHED
But whether this was true or NOT as to
the votes OF Governor Hogg does not
materially affect the question at Issue.
In the issue Of Aug. 10, 1892, the Post
states oditorially that Governor Hopg
did not have two-thlrds without draw
ing largely on contested delegates.
suppose give my joint power Of at
torney to three, five, nine or thirty-nins
certain men, or Us many thereof as 90
where the act is to DO done, and are
willing and offer TO act, 10 make corr
tain trust or convey certain land for me:
and when they assemble the majority
atlx upon the minority a condition
which they are required TO comply
with before they will be permitted to
execute the trust or sign the decd
Whieh condition my power OF attorney
does not authorize, but which was I'M
lawful, and thereupon the majority pre-
vent them by force from acting and
proceed without them, will any man
lawyer or laymen, say such trust was
legally and properly executed, or that
snch soto the majority would convey
any title to any person with notice 81
such unlawful action on their partY
Ihen suppose the minority who have
done what the power OF attorney au.
thori2ed, and were ready and willing 10
comply with every requirement faid
upon them by me, proceed 70 execute
tho trust and make the deed. will anv
man say their action - not blnding.
yea, will he not say rather that their
action alone is binding and alone CON.
veys lawful title?
The condition at Houston, the mo
ceedings there and the result Is inst tbs
condition above supposed, and the ~
SUIT is legally the same. IL makes No
difference whether the action of the
executive committee was unanimous ~.
was mat OF n mere majority. ID VIVA
equally unlawful.
10 not charge any improper native
upon the executive committee mn
that II grievously erred aud at,emnteS
70 e1ereise unlawful power cannat 4
thlnk' DO questioned. deal not win