Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-08

ApTll sotn ushink II u Nh' neg
standing that agreement made AT pal-
los between the Baker-Matlock COM
mittecs was Intended to limit the scope
Of the authority of the next Demo-
cratic state convention IN the con-
structlon Of the platform, also
whether that agreement Implied n
reservation OF right to abrogale to
either party IN any contingency
To your frat question I answer, No.
20 bne presumed that the action OF
that committee could bind the action OF
any future conventions, Every conNen-
tl0n Is sovereign and no member OF
the committees. I take II, ever thought
OF attempting TO dictate TO a conNen-
tlon. Your second question 1 do not
quite understand. Very truly your,
II. NJ. JOHNSTON,
EGltor OF the Post,
Granbury. Tex. PprlI 80. 1Soi.-Mr,
+. @. senter. Fort Worth.-Dear Sir
Answering your letter OF the 10th let
me say my understanding Of the agree
ment entered into at Dallas between
the two committees means Just what II
says. that this committee does not
assume to frame or dictate a platform,
etc" ON all subjects OF principle or
policy touching the future or past Of
our party the committee spoke as IN
'diVlduals, without assuming or expect
ing to commit the party to anything
or TO any course We expressed our
individual Views on the agreement. eN-
copt where It affected the machinery
OF the state
We entered into the compromise or
agreement IN the best Of faith, without
any expectations that either party
would want to abrogate what was done
there. / nnnaTaft0l that fhF.
left perfectly free to do and net as II
may see proper In the next state con-
T, o. MARTIN.
WaNahachie, Tex. April 2s.-The Ca
zette. Fort Worth-Gentlemen: have
never thought that an executive COM
mlttee could bind the party In conven-
tlon assembled, or limit the policy OF
such a body. BY reference to the reso-
luti0us adopted AT Dallas you Will And
That no such power was claimed by
the committee.
So far as my knowledge extends.
nothing was said at The Dallas meet
ing about the right to ahrogate or
oven reconsider. and | did not under
stand there WIS any reservation Of
right To abrugate, but that the agree
ment upon the question OF unity was
''f' f'~FAfN ~ wy
p. II. PARDuE.
Decatur, Tex. April 27.-NTr. Il. G.
senter, Fort Worth-Deur sir. Re-
plying to your letter Of yesterday, will
shy that It seems strange to me that
one who understands anything about
the manner in which Democratic plat
forms are made should usk whether
the Baker-Matlock committees intend
ed by agreement TO control the action
OF the next state Democratic conyeu-
ton.
II was my understanding that each
committee thought united action better
than division. aud that the agreement
simply reunited the party and pro-
vidcd that only one call should be
made for precinct, county and state
eonventions. In which all Democrats
are Invited to participate. and each
Democrat To have a voice in making
the neNt state platform by instructions
given In precinct ana county couVeu-
tlons FROM which delegates to the
state convention receive their author
committee.
I have perfect confidence in tho wis.
dom OF the united Democracy. and nm
satisfied II we Will quit trying To find
something TO quarrel about aud sp,ud
our time in impressing the people with
tho Importance OF attending the prl-
morles, whore we are all equal In
authority, unhampered by the agree
ments or opinions Of amy and all mon.
the convention at Dallas will be one OF
which we win be proud, and IN No
romber we viii all rejoice together
over one OF the grandest victories OF
Texas Democracy. Very truly yours.
c, w. MARTIN.