The Banner-Democrat. [volume] (Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La.) 1892-current, 1899-11-18
Communicated
THE FACTS.

Mr.. Editor Events in the matter OF Sc
lectlpg candidates of the Democratic party
in this Judicial and Senatorial District,
have moved so fast in the past few days
that the average voter who has something
else to do than ''whoop 'em up for the va
rious candidates. is apt to become bewiid-
cred thereby, until he seeks information;
and as.such voter in that party, peg Ior
space ia your valuable paper to ask ques-
tiop: and in doing so, shall use tue terms
Holmes and Montgomery factions,a AS desig-
mating the two sides, inasmuch as MT.
Holmes and Judge Montgomery are the re-
spective candidates Tor Judge,
1t appears that the District Executive
Committee met on the Sth OF this month
and provided for a nominating convention.
How that convention was to be constituted:
the mann er of voting therein. etc, Is wen
known to perhaps every voter IN the PARISH
and it is not necessary to detail 1t. Su1ce
it to say, that, in my opinion, the aetlon
of the District Executive committee I'D
providing the manner OF voting that ~ oiu
was wrong, because it deprived q voter OF
the right of exercising his choice. unless he
chose to vote straight factlonal ticket.
and am glad to see this was condemned
| by both factions bere in this parish.
Itappears that finding that pubic senti-
ment did not endorse, but on the contrary,
condemned such action, the District Com
|
| its for action and ordered general PR,
| mary for the Sth of December, as desired
This was fair to all parties; all that could
| be desired and all that was desired oY the
| voters. ,
1t further appears that the Madison rar-
| ish Executive Committee Immediately on
! the action of the District Committee on the
| Stb. recognized such action, and calico a
| primary for the nomination of their parish
J officers on the same day and at the same
| POLLS 1t is well to state here. tnat IL Is
GENERALLY understood that large majority
| ot the Madison Parish Committee. Insofar
"a the choice of it's individual members ID
| concerned, fayors the Montgomery faction
| and that the District Committee faVors the
| Holmes factiOn.
| Now comes the strange thng-that I'M
| mediately on the District Committee re-
scipding their former action and calling
general primary. the Madison Son,na,, ar;
repudiated such action, denied the authorl'
ty of the District Committee to rescind its
former action denied its right to repair the
| wroor and resolved to hold district cleo
ton in Madison parish on the day ana uh
der the rules first adopted by the Distric,
Committee. But finding. like the Distric
Committee had found, that the sentiment
of the party in that parish equally con
demned their action as it did OF the DIS
trict Committee, and for the same reason
the Madison Committee then retrace9 III
steps.in refusing to go into the general pr
mary ordered for the 10th OF November: re
scipding its action and concluded 10 nol'
.ho eIectinn there on the 18th of December
under the PROVISIONS auoPteo y! Wv
trict Committee. a.,
Mr.. Editor. is it not unreasonable tina
under this state of facts. we ind person
who. while condemning the District Com
mittee, uphold, or at least, conoohe u
: action of the Madison Committee! An
> does not the question then become yer
,nertirent. wby. if it was wrong for TIL
= District Committee to do as they dld q
first. il was not wrong Tor the Madlso
Committee TO endorse that wrong an
0 make it their own by refusing to aiio"
to be righted, and refusing to go into III
. primary, as finally ordered by the Distri'
i Committee!
It is charged that because the member
of the District Committee favored III
Holmes faction. that that Committee acte
, I'm the interest of that faction. on the otht
q hand. it is charged that because the men
e hers of the Madison committee favored III
a Montgomery faction that 1t acted In tne u
terest of that faction; there Is. therefore,
much cause for truth in the one charge
the other. Now, certainly what was wron
q in the Holmes people. could not De flsht
the Montgomery people. If one was IN u
- mud, the other was In the mire. lhdeeu,
=, looks as if the Montgomery peopie; nav ;"
d followed the Holmes faction INTO the hu
liked it so we'll that they wanted TO sta
there and not return with them to cry Ian
aud the middle of the road. =,
e That the District Committee mao u
iurisdictation to retrace their steps can ~
be doubted: that they ought to nave doi
J. so In the interest of justice, Is equaiiy .
l. vond DISPUTE. Then why ought tney not
have done so? Is it ever too late 10
right? No, Mr.. Editor, no one Objects 10
wrong being righted. except ne VINO
I, profitIpg. or expects to proht py tn
:. wrong. Now 1t seems to me that wher ye
hear \ man standing up and uenouhcil
the action of one committee as an uhlu
u outrage. and at the same time defending
condouing the action OF the other you y
justified in doubling that mans sincefi,
and in suspecting that he rather ises U
2. ontrare. and would not object to holding
a to it as good thing, tits SIMPLY case
!. the skillet calling the pot black, :
Now, Mr.. Editor, we are 10 na.e u ~
& urinary on the sth of December to seie
the nominees Of our party for district OF
GERS. but from all can see, TINS is nos W
tn any one candidate, or any one SET Oh ca
Is didates. nor to their immediate timex al
e. thin, partisans: but it is due to the slur'
a Dem ocracv OF this parish. VINO WITHOUT
GARD to factions, have always stood LOT Ju
'e and fair dealings. and who demand
Il