The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-07-15
JUDGE WELLS IN COMMITTEE.
Did Not Oppose Uniform Primaries, but
Radical Action.

Did Not Oppose Uniform Primaries, but
Radical Action.
To the Editor of The Post
Fort Worth Texas, July 12-Mr. Cock
rell's friends are endea, oring 10 elect him
chairman of the State democratic executive
committee because he introduced resou-
tion requiring all counties to hold primaries
or conventions for sending delegates To the
State convention ON fixed and Uniform
date, which failed to pass. They seek 10
hold Chairman Wells solely responsible for
the defeat of this resolution. Judge Nash,
III an article In the Dallas News OF the SIN
instant. advocating the cause OF Mr.. Cock.
rell. asserts that TIE resolution would have
been adopted but for the opposition of Mr.,
Wells. This Is unjust ana unwarrantvd."
MIR. Wells did not vote on the resolution
The sixteen or eighteen members Gf the
committee who voted against the Cockrcl
resolution came from different sections of
the state. They were not his creatures
the most of them were practically strangers
to him The resolution was defeated be
cause 1t was too radical and too harsh, and
nos because of the opposition of Mr.. Wells,
II will lie remembered that when the COM
mittee convened at Dallas tnat primaries
had already been held IN Cook county and
perhaps In other counties. They had been
called and the dates nXed for holding them
in number of counties, including Dallas
coun,Y, the home of Mr., tockr"li and Judge
Nash Suppose the Cockrel resolution had
result In Cook and the other counties that
had held primaries? Necessarily there
would have been cOntestlng delegations or
the county would have been dlsIIanCh'5 ed
The delegates elected IN the. hrst primary
In Cook county would have gone 70 the
convention Instructed for Colqultt for rail.
road commissioner. The delegates elected
In the second primary might nave gone IN
structed for IIornsby or Curtis. ALI Of the
State candidates would have been put to
the labor and eAnense OF a second com
fafaf is4n aHsut ffsan
Of Dallas county mad refused TO rescind
It's action fixing the date for holding Its
primaries. as would most likely have been
the case the result would have been the
same Thus the adoption OF the Cockrel
resolution would have been burdensome TO
the candidates and would have created
strife. bitterness and Injustice.
For these reasons Chairman Wells on.
posed the Cockrell resolution and advo-
Gated the more conservative course of rec
ommcnding to the counties ~ Ior mold
ing their conventions and elections. AS a
member of that committee ! was opposed
to fixing any date whatever and adNo'
Gated leaving the entire matter 10 the
! county. ! think the matter Is purely one
posed 10 the dictatlon Of the state com
nlttee. The uniform primary idea Is an
innovation on the democratic custom ana IL
contrary. In my judgment, to the principles
| OF democracy.
II you concede the power OF the State
| convention or OF the state committee 10
prescribe the time of holding the primaries
| for the selection Of the delegates 10 the
State convention, It must necessarily follow
| that II has the powe az prescribing the
manner of holding such primaries. 1t would
also follow that II the state convention OF
( committee has such authority, that the
/ judicial. congressional. senatorial and lotto
rial conventions or committees would have
! the same authority. Why would not the
! National convention or committee have Ike
authority? The power would undoubtedly
exist. Its exercise would be great burden
tn the country that Is already suffering IRON
| too many elections.
The democratic party has from Its birth