Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1899-08-11

out OF p precincts were represented.
Ii is true that owing to the shortness
OF time -four days notice as they saw a
number of the small precincts did not
get to hold meeting and III others the
delegates did not get to attend, and
that DutIS precincts we're represented.
But these - precincts, represented So
per cent of the voters, and OF the dele
gates entitled TO sit in the Convention,
so the the BIS. can gather tor them
selves no crumb of comfort there. But
it might be interesting to inform these
hunters after weak points that the del
egates at the convention of June 81,
1908, were fully as numerous as were
the voters that attended the various
District Meetings called on June -,
1893, to meet July ,, 1898, to send dele
gates to Charlottesville.
We have by us the figures for two of
these District meetings as to which
there was neraly three weeks notice.
The meeting for Stonewall district
comprising five precincts, met at Saums-
Vile, and there were present and par
ticipating the following voters, viz: J
II. Williams, Robt Allen, and J. J..
Bower. voters at Court House precinct,
A. K. Keller and Otis Smith. voters at
Borden Precinct, Saumsville precinct.
(where the Convention was heidi none,
ST. Luke more. Central School House,
none, Total. Five voters present.
The meeting for Madison district also
called on June 18TH. to meet at Lantz'
Mill on July 2ud. for some unaccount-
able reason met at Union Forge, instead
of at the place called. and there were
present, three voters from Ediuburg
precinct, three from Lantz's Mill pre-
ciuct, none from Columbia Furnace,
and none from Liberty Furnace. six in
all, these two meeting are about or the
par with the meetings OF the other tour
districts.
1t Is futher stated in that wonderful
NIilcv's communication of July 81, 'gql
that this committee has agreed on sev-
eral occasions. that If certain things
were conceded Mr. Rhodes should re-
sign. This committee gcvcr agreed 20
any such thing.
The Milev Committee further states
that Mcssrs VI. J.. Walton and T.. D.
Newman both assured Mr.. Aiiey on
the day of his election as Chairman
that such action would be satisfactory
This committee has nothing TO do with
what either Mr.. Walton or Mr.. New
man may have been willing 10 do.
Neither of them are member oil this
nor were either of them
authorized TO speak for 1t. But IN JUS
tice to- McSsrs Walton and Newman II
is due them TO state, that they assure
Us that Mr.. Miiey misunderstood their
position that they were never opposed
10 his being made chairman of a united
that thew were not interest.
ed i'm who was TO be chairman OF the
Breuaman committee when he resign
ed. If the two committees were 20 be
continued.
We will not trcspass further on your
time i'm a discussion of matters all OF
which have been previously settled 10y
a tribunal from which there IS no APP
peal. DIV the vote of the party IN the
of April ist. Ioqg.l believing
that the voters of the party are too IN
teligcut TO be caught by such spccious
arguments as these Dy which the Milev
committee attempt to justify It's defiant
rebellion against the action of the par
tv at the April convention, IN refusing
TO cooperate with this committee, or
i'm any way 10 unite with IL IN securing
a Joint convention, so as to present but
one candidate to the people, and one
committee to manage the campaign.
The communication of Mr.. l.. T..
Mitchell. who was the chairman of the
convention re of April Ist. 1899, and
which appea d in the supplement OF
the Strasburg Meas of Aug. 4, 1899,
was exactly the opinion OF this commit
tee; and recommends just what this
committee has been trying to get the
Milcv committee to agree to DO, but III
voiu.
This communication from Mr.. Mitch
ell, is appended to this paper in order
that the people may be acquainted with
the views of the Chairman of the April
as to the signiication OF
the action of that convention.
VI. W. MAGRUDER. y. NJ. RHODES,
Sec'tv. Chairman.
To the Editor of he ShyaSbHrg Meas:
In your issue of July 18th you refer
to the unhappy squabble between the
rival Democratic factionsi in Shenandoah
county under.the editorial caption The
WAY to Settle II, and ask the dispu-
tants to submit their claims to the state
Executive Committee, and alleged
that it is the business of said committee
TO settle Shenandoah county differences.
TO this view beg leave TO differ with
YOU. The State Executive Committee
has neither the authority nor the power
to settle a matter that rests wholly with
the democratic voters of Shenandoah