The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1898-06-08

L
did not admit any one who was op-
posed to making nominations, and
they suggested or nominated a full
ticket.
We believe many of them realize
the mistake they made, not only the
method they pursued but III the for
nation of the ticket itself, because by
the personnel of The ticket they laid
themselves open to the charge OF IL
consistency; they claim to be advo-
eating a moral principle, neverthe-
less they make up ticket with at
least three of their nominees who are
avowed dispensary men, and one who
it is said is neither for dispeDsary or
prohibition, and in favor Of high
license, but prefers the dispensary to
prohibition. Out Of the seven State
officers suggested, four are said to be
opposed to the Prohibition move
ment.
Since the suggestion was made, the
Prohibition Executive Committee,
not being able to withstand the con-
slant fire that has been pouring into
It on account Of this inconsistency,
undertook a work of Specification
b. lis:nissing one OF the diSpensary-
les from the ticket; this one was the
former State Democratic chairman,
with his hand on the lever of tie
party machinery, but the Prohibition
lists did not dismiss him from their
ticket until afterthe Democratic party
placed the throttle iuto the hands Of
another engineer. Tompkins was
dropped because he was opposed to
the Prohibition platform and openly
asserted it. Zimmerman, Epton and
Thompson, all Of whom are not in
favor Of the Prohibition platform, are
permitted to remain. The action Of
the former executive committee did
not satisfy some OF the gentlemen on
the Prohibition ticket sufficiently to
make sure of their status IL the party
and, being conscientious, they want
ed to have the question ruled upon
by the only authorized power-the
present State Democratic Executive
Committee; letter with formal ques-
tons was addressed to the committee
by Hon. George s. Mower, which IS
as follows:
whether or not the suggestion of
4ion = or,v conven+ion makes the person
who is suggested and accepts a cali
didate in the Democratic primary
such as is forbidden by the terms of
the pledge prescribed by the coasti-
tptlon OF the DeMocratlc parry u
't''0 0S
Auc alter being discussed 1fom
every STANDPOINT OF party ID" Tue io''
loving ruilng py 'ne comlnltlee WIS
given to Mr., Mowers question::
eve interpret the constitution as
disfavoring factlonal nonInaIlohs, !; ),
as Individuals the votes
will be counted.
This reply, taken in connection
with the pledge REQUIRED bv the con-
st,tntiop settles the matter and means
tbat any ,n.n SUGGESTED bv conven-
tion or primary not called bv the
authorities il be accepts
.,o,, s,ooac.;on or no,nination cam
NOT run in the Democratic primary,
}nt tho> any Democrat can run in
the primary as an individual. The
nominees of the late Prohibition con-
vention are debarred from running
in the primary unless they first with
draw their acceptance from the Pro-
hibition Executive Committee. If
these gentlemen who have been sug-
sesteL withdraw their acceptance, it
places them on the same basis as any
other Democrat, and, under the rul-
ing, they are entitled to the same
But it may be said
pledges are always signed as individ-
aals and it will not hinder the Prohi
I,;.;,r c,,orcctaoS frDrr s;Uuino This