The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-22

committee on credentials by an ave and
nay vote the majority OF those present at
the convention determining its action.
chairman of an executive committee OF Har-
ris county who would cell a convention TO
order and proceed to call the roll of the pre-
clncts in the county, ana fix the number
OF votes that each precinct was entitled to
cast and determine who should cast those
votes. would not long survive the righteous
Indignation of an intellisent democracy. And
| undertake to saw that in 40 other coun-
ties OF this state would such practice be
tolerated except Fort Bend.
Now, with reference to proxies: / DENY the
statement that a convention composed Of
delegates elected to It from county conven-
lions has the right to deny to the delegates
which have been elected to represent the
different counties in such convention the
right TO vote by proxies. The Limitation upon
tho delegates right to be represented by
proxy must be imposed by the convention
which elected him, and not bv the convention
to which he is elected II there Is a single
authority contrary to this proposition would
like to have a reference to It, The law
is settled by numerous decisions in this
country aud in England that stakeholder
in a private corporation has the right to vote
and be represented in stockholders meet
ing bv proxy, and the courts have no power
to restrain the proxy from exercising that
Fed. Req. 81; Mobile Railway Co. VS.
Nichols. 9s Ala. 92 Griffith VS.. Jewett. 10
Ohio. 419 Railway Co. VS. the State. ~ Ohio,
66S; Am. and Eng. Enc. OF Law. vol. q,
with reference to precedent for voting by
proxy. have to saw that the Richmond
convention Is the only one within my knowl-
edge that has ever denied the right do
not believe there has been a State judicial
or congressional convention held within the
past ten wears which included the counties
bordering on the lower Rio Grande in which
Hon. James Wells was not present represent
ing majority Of those counties by proxv.
and II he has ever been refused the privilege
OF voting them, have never heard Of IT,.
and have been in several conventions where
he voted them. large majority of tho
counties situated in the Panhandle have al
WAYS been voted in the state conventions by
proxy
Again 7 call on The Post to give us the
instances in this state In which proxies have
been refused the right to vote. Respectfully
w. G. Love.
Houston July II, 1000
The decision Of Chairman Moore was
that the vote for temporary chairman
of the convention should be taken by
counties. and that none save accredited
delegates be allowed to vote. thus elm
mating proxies.
The effect Of this decision was that the
delegates present from the counties
should cast the vote on the basis OF rep
resentation fixed by the State commit
| tee
The Post stated. and still contends, that
this decision was correct and strictly in
accord with presidents and party usage.
Upon this proposition of The Post Mr..
Love "prolongs this controversy" and
consumes a great desl of space to little
purpose. He quotes from writer's on par
| liamentarv practice who have laid down
some simple rules for the organization
of town or mass meetings. to prove that
/ the vote on tie nporary chairman should
have been taken viva voce These refer
ences are not relevant, for the reason that
Mr.. Moore was present in the dual ca
pacitv Of member of the State executive
committee and senatorial district chair
man, charged with the responsibility OF
organizing the convention. hence he was
ance OF the organized democracy OF
the State. There is no similarity
between this convention and a simple
mass meeting or gathering of citizens
But be that as il may the usage of the
party land usage is the law of the party
!
down by, commentators. just as a rule
of congress or of the State Legislature
is superior to any manual on general par
liamentarv practice.
Mr.. Loves contention is, first, that
Chairman Moore had no right to decide
that the vote on temporary chairman
should be taken by counties. and that the
vote be cast by accredited delegates pres
emit, and asks The Post for precedents
to the contrary; and. second, that proxies
have right to vote in temporary organ.
ization, and invited presidents to dis
prove this coptention.
The Post will accommodate Mr.. Love
and cite the precedents:
In 1884 in Houston when Governor Ire
land was candidate for reelection
Colonel Bill Upton of Fayette county wal
elected temporary chairman by acclama
ton. because no other name was submit
ted and call OF the counties was unnec
essarv.
In 1886. when Governor Ross was nom
mated at Galveston, Colonel Tom Bonnie
| OF Iyler ana Hon. IN. NJ NSuuc VI rol
! Worth were placed in nomination and o.
vote bv counties Bonner was elected.
t In 1888. at Dallas, there was only on
name submitted and there was no vot
! by counties
i, In 1890, at San Antonio, Captain Hutch
eson was elected by reclamation, Their
being no other name presented,
In 1892. at Houston. Hon. Web Finley
J State chairman. insisted that breeder
0 be followed and. where more than on
name was offered. the vote for temporar
/ chairman should be taken by counties
Mr.. Matlock and some of his follower
IS made this the pretext to bolt and leay
e the hall. 1t is very probable that NJ
: Matlock himself will not now seriousl
/, contend that he was right.
+ In 1896. at Fort Worth. Hon. George
$ Pendleton and Mr.. r. M. Johnston wei
n nominated for temporary chairman. Whe
! the call of counties was about half con
a pleted Mr.. Pendleton was withdrawn ar
a Mr. Johnston elected unanimously.
70 In 1895 at Galveston Hon j. b. Wei