The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1900-06-27
COL. HOYT'S INTERVIEW.


State of the 5th instant. Col. j. a. Hoyt,
the nominee OF the prohibition party for
Governor. in reference TO the pledge
or oath all candidates are required to
make, construeS the said oath to suit
himself. and intimateS his intention to
make it. and that he can do so conScl-
entiouSly.
The pledge or oath is a provision OF
the State Democratic party. incorpor-
ated in the Constitution and reads as
follows:
The oath shall be taken by all candidates as
follows: AS candidate for the ONCE OF -
in the Democratic primary election, 10 De heio
on the last Tuesday IN August, lsoV. nerepy
pledge myself to abide the result OF such PR.
mary and support the nominee thereon, ana that
am not. nor will sbecome, the candidate OF
any faction. either privately or puoac!E sus-
gested. other than the regular Democratic NOM
ination.
Is Col. Hoyt not the candidate OF
faction? He certainly is. Is he not
the nominee of the recent Prohibition
State Convention? Most assuredly. IS
the Prohibition party not distinct
party, a faction, with all the organized
machinery Ct any other distinct party,
with State Chairman and State En-
ecutivc Committee? 1t certainly en-
braces all these political requisites.
Was not Conference, or ID plain
English, Prohibition State Conven-
ton officially called for the purpose OF
nominating mot merely Suggesting J
a candidate for Governor and Lieuten-
ant Governor? This fact cannot be
denied. Nor can it be denied that Col.
J. \. Hoyt was then and there made
the regular nominee of the Prohibition
faction he cannot enter the race for
Governor without hagrantly violating
the Constitution and Rules Of the State
Democratic party. And being thus
nominated, nominated in violation OF
party law. the matter OF subscribing to
the required oath will be left to his own
conscit nee, of which he is the sole Gus
todian.
Col. Hoyt. in his interview. speaking
of the oath in question, says:
Whatever the author OF this clause
intended he did not succeed IL expressing him.
self so clearly that it was not susceptible OF
different constructions. and hence 1t was 10 be
construed as relating to the general e!ectlon
and not the primary: CAoer thiS we" "ou!o
did Mr. BrunSon hesitate two years ago
Col. Hoyt is strangely in error in say
inc that the clause Of the Constitution
regarding the oath 10 be taken by can
didates can ''be construed as relating to
the general election and not the prl-
marv.'' We say he is strangely in
error in such construction, because the
paragraph above quoted plainly says:
:.As a candidate for the Office OF -,
in the Democratic PRIMARY ELECTION,
to be held on the last Tuesday IN Aug,
1900"
He is again in error when he SAYS
that Mr.. Brunson did not hesitate TO
sign the pledge two years ago. He dld
hesitate and never signed the required
oath. but substituted a pledge OF ms
own getting up, and worded II to suit
his own conscience. which read as FOL
lows:
u have filed my pledge as a candidate; oe!iev-
ing that am not now, nor will become a can
didate for other than the regular Democratic
nomination. i.e for the nomination oelore
the primary. or as the regular nominee II alter
the primary.
Mr.. Brunson subsequently withdrew
this pledge and retired from the race,
on the sole ground that he could not
conscientiouslv subscribe TO the oath
required: that he was just as much the
nominee of faction after the action OF
the Prohibition Executive Committee
IN Withdrawing the nominee. and trying
TO undo what the Convention had done,
as ne was before it acted.
II seems, however. that Col. Hoyt
takes different view from MIR. Brun-
son as TO the test of conscience in max
ing the oath required by all candidates.
I--Laurens Herald.