The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-06-15
DID NOT DISCRIMINATE.
The National Committee Denies
That 1t Favored McKinleyites.

That 1t Favored MCklnIeylteS'
ST. LOUIS, Mo-, June 14.-The follow
ing statement is given out tonight from
Ohio headquarters to show that the Ma
tionai Committee performed its duties In
the matter of contested seats IN a spirit OF
fairness to all concerned:
An analysis OF the work of the National Com
mittee in regard to the 1853 contests which
were originally filed with it shows that 136
cases were acted on, some OF the original num-
Der having been abandoned, while several Il.
notably those of Delaware and a portion OF
the Texas delegation, were referred TO the con-
Vention. In many cases both contestants and
contestees were understood to be Mckinley
men, notably in all the Mississippi and South
Carolina districts and in certain districts from
Tennessee, Virginia and elsewhere.
OF the 1856 claimants rejected by the COM
rnittre sixty-two were aYoWed Mckinley men.
The impression which prevailed during the
consideration OF these cases-that the commit
tee was deciding large number OF the cases in
favor of McKinley-doubtless grew out of the
fact that in nearly all of the States where there
was large number of contests both the con-
testants and the contestees were avowed Nc
Kinley men, and as a natural result more Nc
Kinley men were necessarily given seats than
were anti-McKinley men.
In New York three dis trictS were contes ted,
covering six delegates. Two OF the contests
were decided in favor of the Mckinley dele
gates and in the other districts both delega-
lions were admitted, giving each delegate a
half vote.
In Pennsylvania there was contest in the
Third District The contesting delegations
were both admitted each delegate having a
half vote.
In Delaware the contest was referred to the
convention.
In Virginia there were contests in the Sec
ond, Third and Eighth districts. In the Third
and Eighth the contests were Withdrawn, and
in the Second District both delegations were
admitted, each delegate being given q half
vote.
Sixth District. Both delegations were ad-
mitted, each delegate with half vote.
In South Carolina there was contest in
each of the districts and as to the delegates-at-
large, covering eighteen votes. Both the con-
testants and contestees were Mckinley men,
the contests turning on differences between
local factions. All of the contests were de-
cided in favor OF the Webster faction.
In Georgia there were contests in three Of
the districts and as to two of the delegates-at-
large, all of which were decided in favor OF the
Mckinley delegates.
In Florida there were contests in the Second
District and as to the delegates-at-large. The
Mckinley delegates were accepted in the Sec
ond District also the delegates-at-large, the
Mckinley delegates in the First District being
rejected.
In Alabama there were contests in the First,
Third, Fourth. Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth
and Ninth districts and the delegates at-large.
The Fifth and Ninth districts were decided
against the Mckinley men. The others seated
were McKi nley men.
In California there were contests in the
Third and Fourth districts, both of which
were decided in favor of the Mckinley men.
In Mississippi there were contests in the
seven districts and as TO the delegates-at-
large. All were avowed Mckinley men, the
fight being between local factions. The Hill
faction was successful except in the Second,
Third and Sixth districts.
In Louisiana there were contests in the First,
Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth dis
tricts, the Mckinley delegates being successful
except in the Fourth District, where the deeis-
ion was against them.
In Texas there were contests in every dis
trict and as to delegates-at-large. None of the
delegates-at-large were placed upon the tenn
porary roll. In ten of the districts the con tests
were decided in favor of the Mckinley dele
gates, while in the remaining-the Seventh,
Tenth and Twelfth-the decision was against
them.
In Kentucky there was but one contest, the
Fifth District which was decided in favor OF
the Mckinley delegates.
In Tennessee there were contests in the Sixth
and Ninth districts, contestants and contestees
being Mckinley men in one district while in
the other, the Sixth, the anti-McKinley con-
testants were seated.
In Arizona there was a contest as to the six
delegates at large, all being admitted with a
half vote each. The contest in Alaska was de-
cided in the same manner.
In South Carolina, Louisiana and Texas
there were organizations commonly known as
the Oily Whites" claiming seats in the con.
vention, but in all of these cases the committee
decided that the organizations were irregular
nr,dn 49, h. I'D