The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-22
LET US HAVE THE PRECEDENTS.

.,hiIshed in Monday fosl reletIihs W 'hN
4 p-eanIzation OF the senatorial convention at
4 q ,chmond, you say: THE ruling oil Chairman
,,ooro was correct and sustained by all
rreoedeuts Every convention Is supposed TO
aass upon the question OF whether or not
rroxles should be allowed, after report from
~ ,,.,oi committee on credentials" And In
mis- mornings issue of The POST IN reply TO
,,dv, Perryinan's article on the same sub
4 ,eet. you say: the Post does JUSTIFY the
sr,,ro action OF the chairman and so will
.rv democrat in Texas who Is conversant
u,ih the rules and practice of the party in
4 conventions" In the same article you go on
a - say that the chairman OF the Richmond
Il convention in naming the basis OF representa-
,inn. was right, because lin so doing he
smply followed the order of the State ex-
ecuiive committee, which. Mr.. Perryman
4 must know, is the law Tor any convention
4 nniess specifically changed by some par
sSer. resorted to- Now, have no disposi-
lire IN say further, that | did not expect The
Post TO approve the action of the Harris
IA county delegation, because 1t has at all
"a times condemned and criticised the county
# convention of Harris county. which elected
W that delegation, even going SO far as, in
M double column editorial, to characterize that
al Convention as a "Howling Farce. But while
"a did not expect anything else than that
~ The Post, in so far as its own opinion was
81 concerned, would condemn any action taken
M bv any delegation elected by the county
~ Convention / did expect more OF it as a
M newspaper, than to think that 1t would at
# tempt TO justify its criticisms by unsupport-
~ ed statements with reference to presidents
~ and rules of parliamentary procedure. 1t did
M not occur to me that any man familiar with
Ia the rules governing deliberative assemblies
"a or having any experience with political con-
IN yeptions, would attempt to justify the rulings
|X of the chair now under discussion, and there
Il fore did not deem it necessary to cite any
M authorities in support of my view. But
III since The Post has, without reference to any
III rule authority or precedent made the un-
I'll qualified statement that such ruling was
IA supported by AN precedents, | desire to
~ rail- the attention of your readers to the fol-
M lowing authorities bearing upon the ques-
H lion;
M In the FIRST place, my contention is that no
M persons except those present in the conven-
#& ton entitled to vote temporary or
# ganizatiOn, and the ruling OF the chair ID
M permitting one delegate to cast the votes of
HH nine delegates who were not present, on such
'X temporary organization, was without prece-
E dent or authority to support It, Mr.. Cushing,
~ N his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, sec
2 lion 244, page 141, says; ut is general
ma rule that any member who is in the as
& lemby room at the time when the question
WI Is stated. has not only the right. but is
|& bound to vote; and on the other hand, that
tH 20 member can vote who was not in the
IS4h room at that time The same author,
wa ,age 80. says The principle upon which
> he decision of all aggregate bodies such as
1x& councils corporations, and deliberative as
81 Iemblies, are made, is that of majority
Mi votes or suffrages; and this rule holds not
S*3 bnly in reference to questions and subjects
<;H which admit only Of an affirmative on the
&$bne side and a negative on the other but
#& also in reference TO elections in which more
Xtz Than two persons may receive the suffra ges,
xM And again, on page %, section A. 1t is said:
S44 The judgment or Will of any number of
E3}persons considered as an aggregate body is
NJ that which is evidenced by the consent OF
*xithe greater number of them; and the only
&Xfnode by which this can be ascertained, in
reference to any particular subject, is for
one Of them to begin by submitting to
sy:phe others a proposition, expressed in such
a3}torm OF words, that, If assented to by the
|{ff squiste number il will purport to express
Hill he judgment or will OF the assembly"
*# A late work on parliamentary law by
E Joseph 7 Robert, published during the pres
&Nent year entitled A Primer on Parliame ntary
8#Law, lays down the rules on page l6, that in
HWslecung temporary officers, the vote should
H&#be taken by the ayes and noes, or by show
H#oi hands OF those present at the meeting
N.Hl De same author, on page 16O, in discussing
H*l The mode OF procedure when a question has
IS Deen put TO viva voce vote and the result
E Is in doubt. states that it shall be decided
EMby those favoring the notion rising and
&sasf landing until counted and those opposed
INC same way so as to ascertain by actual
OF those present in the meeting, which
us IN the majority.
Roberts Rules of Order an accepted au
EN thority in this country. gives the following
rules Tor organizing a convention or mass
E meeting: Whom a meeting is held which
is not Of an organized society. shortly after
H#t the time appointed for the meeting some
UHmemoer OF tina assembly steps forward and
pays The meeting will please come to or
M oer move that Mr.. A act as chairman
so this meeting. Some one else SAYS: I
second the motion. The FRS: member then
ENputs the question to vote by saving: 1t
HMhas been moved and seconded that Mr.. a
&act as chairman OF this meeting those in
&taVor of the motion will saw Aye; and when
IISEin ne affirmative vote is taken, he saws Those
hi Opposed will saw No II the majority vote
pa tho affirmative he saws. The motion is
Hcarrled: Mr.. will take the chair If the
sanction is los, he announces that fact and
calls for the nomination of some one else
for chairman and proceeds with the new
nomihation as in the first case. Roberts
n1@ and 1867
W In organizing tina senatorial convention
2st Richmond, the chair counted the votes OF
MHnine delegates elected from Austin county
E<i~ere not present at the convention. and In
&s9 doing he was clearly in conflict with
Mthe authorities which have cited But The
rost says that in fixing the basis OF rep
representation he followed the order of the
EWSlato executive committee. / denv IT. The
W#state executive committee has never fixed
Wanv oasis OF representation for senatorial
convention and has never said who shoul,
U&o De emitted TO cast the votes of the different
Hcouhties in such a convention. II is known
Il to everybody who is familiar with the prerog.
MatVes OF tho State executive committee anC
HHwho have read the proceedings OF that com
Mmlttee this wear. that 1t does not attemn
to1 in the State convention, merely
E#rulue to the county conventions in the seec-
Wuon OK delegates to the State convention
anu before that action is binding even upoI
the State convention when II meets, it mus
% adopted by the convention Itself; but NJ
STATE executive committee has ever ATTEMPT
Lea to fix the representation or pass upoi
the credentials Of delegates to n senatorial
efcohVenton, A senatorial convention has tn
rlght to fix the basis of representation Z
M suit the will of a majority of the delegate
~ attendance upon the convention for tn
E ieason that there is no mower authorized I
EThtescrbe its rules OF conduct and there
!ore under the general parliamentary au
W SShoritv Il has the right possessed by a
N etuoerative bodies to determine. by ma
Itrl'v OF its members present, the rule
M Ipai are TO govern its future proceedings.
ErnnallenEe Tho Post 10 show an instance I
MiN when State executive committee has adopt
U#.l any rule regulating the representation
U#eS.vuenuals or any convention EXCEPT TIL
H#elate convention. My contention was that
ELS majority OF the delegates present at the Ricl
mond convention with the assistance of III
NHlnsn who called the convention to orde
W% oohtroIied the majority and that this We
.mplished bv the chair counting the vote
N"w ni'een delegates who were not in attend
MtHufe upon the convention, and refusing
U AZ same time 10 count the votes OF fot