Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-13
-, 1879.
WHAT Is,AsKED or COMMITTEE.

Tho Charlottesville Progress informs its
readers that the May meeting. while
onIv representing a small section OF Nir-
GINA" insists upon the state Ceh'ral
Committees "transcending its powers ana
annulIing the action of the last Demo-
cratic State Convention" And the Pro-
gress goes on 10 say that the conference
certainly could not have believed such
a petition either reasonable or likely to
be granted"
Now let us see precisely what it is that
the conference csks our State Democratic
Committee to do.
IL asks n that the committee viii
either order State primary election Tor
the nomination OF senator; or (9. Will CAL
a State convention 20 make the nominal
ton.
That the State Committee will not be
pressed TO order a State primary Is GER
tain. The Dispatch has time ana again
EXPRESSED the opinion that our state Com
mittee has no legislative power. This posi-
ton is held also by many of the leaders
of the May meeting. Mr.. Jones candidly
stated his views to the conference Yet
there were members of the Committee on
Resolutions who thought ii would do no
harm TO let the State Committee itselt
pass upon the question, and hence, In
splrit of compromise. 1t was incorporated
as an alternative proposition. If the state
Committee decides that 1t Is without
power In these premises II Will only come
20 the same conclusion that has been
reached by many of the most prominent
gentlemen connected with the May move
ment.
Perhaps the Progress thinks our State
Committee would be "transcendng its
mowers" TO call State Democratic con-
yention. If so, we do not see how it can
maintain its position. The Roanoke con-
yention decided nothing, except that it
would not instruct the state Committee
TO hold State primary elections for the
purpose OF allowing the people TO nomi-
nate senators.
The Roanoke convention did not de-
cide-it was not asked TO decide whether
a convention should be ordered to assem-
bic in 1899 or In any other year. to make
the nomination.
Kit that the hOdlOht NtHNNHNlNl ntlh
no hostility to the convention system OF
nominating is evident. on that point 1t
put itself upon record i'm the most con-
spicuous and positive form. This record
consists in the fact that the Roanoke con-
yention itself made the denomination Of
the Hon. John w. Daniel d test question
in our party.
Now we concede that the State Demo
cratic Committee may inquire and deter
mine If 1t would be polite and wise for 1t
f., TO call a State convention on the senate
rial question. or on any other question,
hut we cannot imagine how II could con-
tend that to do so would be transcend
ing its powers, or that the Roanoke con-
yention had taken a stand against nomi-
mating senators by State convention.
III our state Committee should decide
that the situation, as they view it, is not
such as would justify it in calling State
convention of our party, then the confer
ence plan favors ascertaining the prefer
ence of the Democratic voters in each
legislative district 'by party primary
An the district, or by some other equally
fair method"
This last plan, called by some the
z Hone-rule plan, seems to be in accord
with the views of Senator Daniel. who Is
quoted in the Dispatch Of April ith as
follows:
"What DO you think. Senator, of the
movement 10 elect senators by the peo-
ple?"
81 am" he replied, "in favor of allow
ing any OF the counties that desire 10 in
dlcate their choice for senator by pri-
nary or primaries 10 do so. but am OPP
posed 10 forcing any county TO adopt that
plan"
We quote the foregoing from the Dis
patch of April 4th, where IL appears in
our Washington letter, In an account
given OF an interview between Mr.. Aud.
OF Ioudoun, and Senator Daniel.