Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-09-12
Third District Prohibition Can.
didate for Congress is Up
Against . Problem.
Claim Made That Earl is Not
Entitled to Place on Official
Ballot.
Nomination Not Made in Prop.
erly Called Convention
Others Concerned.
Special to Times-Republican.

| 0peStaI " llHleS-hepuDllcan.
Waterloo, Sept. 12.-Objection has
been raised to the filing of the nolnina-
| ton papers of Rev. John A. Earl, the
prohibition candidate for congress, on
the ground that he has not been prop
erly nominated. The claim is. made that
the convention which named him as the
candidate of the prohibitionists of this
district was without authority to make
such nomination because the dele
gates composing it had been chosen
only as delegates to the state prohibi-
toin convention, and the purpose Of Sc
lecting a candidate for congress was
were chosen and was not in the minds
of those composing the county conven-
tons from which they received their
authority.
If this is true with regard to Mr..
Earl's nomination, the same irregulari-
ty exists in respect to nearly all the
other prohibition nominees In the elev-
en- districts OF the state. Most Of these
We're nominated during the meeting
OF the state convention in Waterloo.
At that time the delegates from the
various counties composing the sew
eral congressional districts got to-
gether in district conventions and Sc
lected their candidates. There had
been no previous calls for these district
conventions and the delegates compos-
Ing them had been chosen only as dele
gates to the state convention, with no
thought Of their performing the fur
@ther duty of serving as delegates to
district conventions.
Mr.. Earl was looking up the law on
having been called to the statement,
attributed to Julian Richards. private
secretary to Speaker Henderson, that
the nominations thus made were in
valid and that the nominee would not
be entitled to place on the official
ballots. The only section of the code
having any bearing upon the subject is
section 1898 of the election laws which
reads as follows:
ANY convention Of delegates, and
any primary, caucus or meeting of
qualified electors, representing POI
litical party which at the general cleo
ton next preceding polled at least 2
Per cent of the entire vote cast in the
state may, for the state or any division
or municipality thereof. for which the
same Is held, make one nomination of
a candidate for each Office therein to
be filed at the election, and any con-
vention, primary, caucus or meeting,
political party which at
the general election next preceding
poIlad at least 9 par cent of the entire
vote cast in any division or municipal
ity Of the state, may for such division
or municipality or for any political sub
division thereof for which the same is
held, make one such nomination for
each Office therein to he filled at the
election"
1t will be observed that there are no
provisions in the above law governing
the calling or the method of selecting
delegates to political conventions and
no attempt is made to define what is q
within the meaning of the
law. 1t was evidently the purpose OF
the legislature to permit each party to
call and adopt its own methods for the
holding OF such conventions and any
of delegates" is entitled to-
recognition under the section above
nuoted. OF course II two sets of nOmt-
nees were filed by two conflicting con-
ventions, claiming to represent the
same political party, the manner IN
which they had been called and the
method Of selecting the delegates might
have to be examined into to determine
which really represented the party for
which both claimed to be acting.