Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-06-06
ROANOKE CONVENTIONS ACTION

The Charlottesville Progress maintains
that the course Of the Roanoke conven'
ton In passing the Daniel resolution can
not be quoted as a precedent now. be-
cause the case was exceptional. and the
action taken was unanimous. IL holds
that that convention bound everybody
only because everybody wished to be
hound. and because everybody acquiesced
OtherwIse that it's action would have
been persuasive only. 1T was spon-
taneous tribute. and some popular idoi
NAV evoke It again; but 1t Is SAFE 10 say
II will never be binding. except when syn
timen, is unanimous.
"rrIbute." IL was. certainly; but nrs'
and foremost the Daniel resolution was
| plank I'm the platform of the Democratic
marty OF Virginia! And we nave never
heard IL contended that platform re-
nuires anything more than majority
vote. Now. as to the spontaneous
character of the resolution. what are
| the facts?
Tho resolution originated In the COM
| ,,,oo an resolutions and was there d's-
| cussed and was ordered 10 De piauo ="
mart of It's report. 1t was presenteu ssp"
,ateIv only because the prophecies OF 'ne
occasion demanded that tn. reaoihs Vi
~ II should be done by some other per-
co, than the Hon. John w. Daniel VINO
was IN. chairman Of the committee, ana
who was eulogized in the resoiuuoh'
The Roanoke convention was a'tehoe'
nv many distinguished members Oh Jul
Marty. hut none of them raised the e"e
ton OF jurisdiction when the CONVENTION
nroceeded TO settle who our next senate
rial nominee should be. Admitting ("hat
evervbody concedes) the great popuiai'-
~ Of Major Daniel. 1t cannot be DeleVeo
that h,s friends would have been so uh-
mindful OF their duty TO their party as
70 permit the convention to take a step
that was wrong in principle.
Nor will 1t do to say that state coh-
vcntion has no right to do anything put
what II is called into being to 90. IL
our marty were TO adopt any sucn uoc-
tr,ne az that our State conventions would
be at the mercy of the State Committee
II we may be pardoned for saying So II
would be case of the talls wagSihs
the dog. What the Roanoke convention
tboucht of that doctrine may be JudSeo
nv ,ts nossing the Daniel resolution ana
NV IT'S considering ard rejecting the pro-
position to nominate senators ny lhe
direct vote of the people.
So far as we recollect, neither one vi
these questions was embraced In the can
among the subjects specified as demand
ing the attention of the State ConVent'oh'
vet in neither instance did the convention
hesitate to take jurisdiction. And IL Is
important TO remember that both OF those
resolutions were planks of the platform
as framed by and reported from the
Committee on Resolutions.
When the time comes when a state
convention has 10 keep Itself within the
bounds prescribed by the State Commit
tees call, it will find itself the servant
and not the master.
1t is for our State Committee, at It's
meeting to be held on the 18th instant, to
say whether 1t would be advisable or not
to cali a State convention to consider
matters pertaining to the senatorship;
but we do not see how the committee
could base a refusal to call a convention
upon the ground that the Roanoke con-
verition had declared itself against the
choosing of senatorial candidates by a
State convention! We do not know that
the Progress has made use Of that argu-
ment. but certainly some other Of our
State exchanges have.