The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1896-07-01
HOW THE CONTESTS WE'RE DECIDED.
Work Of the Republican National Com.
mittas on tho Temporary Roll.

Work Of the Republican National Com.
mittas on tho Temporary Boil.
The following statement was given out at \
st. Louis to show how the Republican Ma
tional Committee performed Its duties In the
matter Of contested seats:
An analysis Of the work Of the committee
tn regard to the 1853 contests which were
originally flied with 1t shows that iS8 cases
were acted on, some Of the original number
having been abandoned, while several,
notably those Of Delaware and portion OF
the Texas delegation, were referred to the
convention. or the 1876 claimants rejected
by the committee si1ty-two were avowed
Mckinley men. ..
Rere Is q summary OF the committees
work:
New York.-Three districts were contested,
covering six delegates. Two OF the contests
were decided In favor OF the Mckinley dele.
gates, and In the other district both delega-
tions were admitted, giving each delegation
a half vote. William Brookheld and Anson
G. McCook. the anti-Platt delegates In the
Thirteenth New York District, were admitted.
Cornelius N. Bliss and s. Y. R Cruger were
admitted on basis of half vote apiece In
the Twelfth District.
PennsyIvania.-There was con. ast In the
Third District. Both delegations were ad.
mitted, each delegate having q half vote.
Delaware.-The State contest was referred
to the convention.
virginia.-There were contests IN the
Second. Third and Eighth Districts, In the
drawn, and In the Second each delegate got
half vote.
North Carolina.-Both delegations In the
Sixth District were admitted with half votes,
South Carolina.-As to districts and as to
the delegates-at-arge there were contests
covering eighteen votes. All were Mckinley
men. The Webster faction was recognized.
Georgia--In three Of the districts and as
to two of the edelegates-at-large contests were
decided In favor Of the Mckinley delegates.
Mississippi.-There were contests IN the
Seventh and on delegates-at-larse. All were
avowed Mckinley men. The Hill faction
was successful, except In the Second, Third
end Sixth Districts.
Louisiaua-In the First, Second. Third,
Fifth and Sixth Districts. the Mckinley dele
gates were successful, but In the Fourth
District the decision was against them.
Florida-Delegates-a and the Sec
ond District delegates favorable to Mcktn-
ley we're seated, but the a,.Slss Mckinley men In
A!abama-Contests In the First, Third,
Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Districts
and for delegates-at-large were decided for
Mckinley men, and In the Fifth and Ninth
Districts Mckinley men failed Of recogni-
tion.
California-Contests in the Thi-d and
Fourth Districts were decided IN favor OF
the Mckinley men.
Texas.-There were contests In every DIS
trict and as to the delega,es-at-large. None
Of the delegates-at-large was placed upon
the temporary roll. In ten OF the districts
Mckinley delegates won, while IN the re-
maining-the Seventh, Tenth and Twelfth
the decision was AGAINST the Mckinley dele
gates.
Kentucky.-In the Fifth District Mckinley
delegates were victorious.
Tennessee.-In the Sixth and Ninth Dis
tricts. All we're Mckinley men IN the Ninth
District, while In the Sixth the anti-McK1n.
ley contestants were seated. :.
Arizona.-Six delegates-at.large were ad-
mitred with half votes.
Alaska.-The contest was decided Mn the
same manner.
South Carolina, Louisiana and Texas
Organizations commonly known as the "ldly
Whites" claimed seats In the convention, but
In all OF these cases the committee decided
that the organizations were irregular and
could not be recognized.