The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-02-28

yeutlon. In conclusion ne snid that tina /
democratic party WAS about 20 nominate /
by default candidate Tor governor from !
whom not single word had been heard
on leading questions or STATE policy. That
candidate wss a good aud trustworthy I
man, he believed. but the people We're en-
titled to some expression from him before
committing themselves TO bis candidacy.
Mr. Ross ~ Pamela saw no occasion for
the pending resolution when there was the
plain resolution Of the waco convention 10
gutde The committee in this matter.
Mr. Garner Of Uvaidc asked the commit
tee to approach the pending question In
practical way. IT seemed to him that
there was a disposition 10 dictate 10 the
next state convention Recommendations
were preferable to Instructions al this
iunc'ure, he thought, as The executive
COMM ttce passes upon the credentials sub.
mlted by those who present themselves
FOR the purpose Of sitting at the temporary
organization Of the State convention and
1t might. by adopting Mr.. CockreIrs sub
stltute, lay the predicate for rash action.
Chairman Wells counseled coucliaton
MIR. o'Quinn Of Angelina county denied
tho right Of the committee to go back on
the Waco convention after which Mr.
Wells called Mr. Gliding to the chair and
submitted few conclliutory remarks. Ha
bcsought the committee not TO quihble over
! techulcalltes or pursue course that
might destroy harmony. lie recognized
the binding effect OF the Waco resolution,
but argued that II would be p useless thing
/ to do TO threaten counties with penalties
which tho committee had no authority to
! enforce We did not believe that the reso-
luton had been well weighed. 1t would
| surely have been differently worded had
| It's effect been carefully considered. II was
! his advice that suggestions couched Ia
courteous language he offered TO the va
rlJus counties In this matter The use OF
the word recommend" was mere nothing,
he held, as it was a synonym for order.
Putting himself IN the place Of the conn
ties, he said he could be persuaded to agree
10 anything reasonable, but could not be
driven IN any direction. In conclusion, he
declared that an allegiance based on o
ukase was not an allegiance that would
endure.
Mr. Stewart Of Cooke, opposed tie
Cockrell substitute. Personally he did not
like the midwinter primaries, but they
had been held in his county, the PEG
pie had freely participated in them and
the candidates had accepted the result Vi
good faith and no good could come of TO
verslng their verdict or interfering with
Grayson, Dallas. Tarraut and other coun
tics that had already ordered primaries
If the CockrelI idea was adopted about Gfty
counties would ind themselves without rep
resentatou In the next state convention.
aaII r40
nothing In his resolution that condicte'
with the views Of Chairman Wells as
1 simply undertook 70 fix date, leavin
S the state convention free TO pass upo
y the qualifications OF its members.
G Mr. Bell Of Karnes objected to bein
driven, aud Mr.. Morrow Of Hin county DE-
2 clared himself against the adoption a
[ any resolution creating a cloud upon ia
S delegates from counties that have held {
j. ordered primaries. ON motion Of Mr.. stew
}. ard Of Cooke county the Cockrell suhst
e tute was tabled by vote OF IL TO l3 an
C the Bell resolution Gas given elsewher
d was adopted by a viva voee vote.
< JUNE IA SELECTED
4 AS DATE FOR PRIMARIES.
The question Of liking the date for u
D. state primaries was next considered a.
May 10 and May "a were voted down AZ
IL June "A decided upon after much sparrin
Of At this iucture the convention adlourn'
y until o'clock with the understanding m
&c the selection Of the city in which the ne
~ state convention snail he held md q
fixing Of the date for which It shall
p called would ne undertaken at that boz
p there being three cities. Dallas. Gnlvest
~ - Co. Antouto ip the Geld for the 90
ventlou
!" GALVESTON THE PLACE.
te JULY 10 THE DATE.