The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1904-05-13
THE COMMITTEES ACTION.

Tee mOnuayi anu auOpteu ny inc yum
mlttee with only two dissenting
votes. was supposed TO be an approval
and ratification of the HohenwaiC
agreement made two years ago. But
as matter of fact the resolution doe:
no do what it purports to do.
The Hohenwald resolution. pa ssed
two years ago. reads, that two yeals
from today Lewis county he permitted
to name the democratic candidate fol
the Senate for the twentieth senatorial
district, and that two years afterwards
Perry county be permitted to name the
candidate. -
The resolution adopted Monday
reads, that the resolution passed at
the Senatorial convention held at
Hohenwald in Sept. 1902, conceding
the nomination for Senator from this
district at the election to be held in
November 1904, to the counties of
Lewis and Perry, be and the same is
hereby approved and ratified. =
The difference is very plain. The
Hohenwald resolution gives the Sena
tor to Lewis county this year, and to
Perry county two years hence. Where
as the resolution adopted by the Maury
County committee Monday gives the
Senator to Lewis and Perry counties
combined this year, and says nothing
about two years hence.
Whether the committeeman said
what they meant Monday, or meant
what they said. we do not know and
do not care We merely mention the
fact because it may be of future in
terest
MONDAYS resolution contains another
and more important clause. In the
forenoon, before the committee met.
you could hear it everywhere that the
committee would ratity the Hohenwald
agreement and endorse Mr. Schu
bert. That was the talk and that
seemed to be the understanding. That
Is what the committeeman understood
they would be asked to do. and that
Is what as individuals many of them
expressed purpose to do. But mind
you that is not what they did. Instead
Of endorsing Mr.. Schubert, they
nominated him. The resolution
after reciting that the said Schubert
was the choice of the Democrats of
Lewis and Perry counties. continues
rs follows:
'sBe it further resolved that tn |
nomination of Mr.. Schubert is en-
dorsed and he is hereby declared the |
nominee of the Democratic party for
State Senator.
Whether the committee intended to
nominate Mr. Schubert or to ''en
dorse' him, we do not know. We
have suspicion that majority of
them thought they were endorsing
him. And we know that some of the
most intelligent, discerning and
thoughtful ones who voted for it are
open and free to confess that the COM
rnittee had no right, authority or
power to nominate anybody. The
committee have a clear right to endorse
whomsoever they please; and their
endorsement carries with it certain
amount of political prestige. But they
have no authority in the world to
nominate anybody for anything. If
they could nominate Mr.. Schubert for !
the Senate, why could they not nomi !
nate for the House? They are no more
Senatorial committee than they are
q congressional committee. If they
could nominate MIR. Schubert for the I
Fen Ute why could they not nominate |
Mr. Padgett for Congress? If they l
could nominate a Senator, why not
Judge? /
1t was stated in argument before the d
Monday that the case of 5
Chancellor Bearden two years ago L
made precedent. 1t does no such 9
hing. Judge Bearden, having no
was endorsed by the com
mittees of the several counties as a
found democrat, an eminent jurist and
! worthy gentleman. And he is all
hat But he was not declared the J
nominee of the party; did not consider
himself the nominee of the party; did
lot pose before the people or claim the =
Import of democrats as the party !,
lominee. He was subject all during
hat campaign to the action of the &
arty, but the necessity never arising 3
% nomination was ever made.
II would be absurd and preposterous &
D contend that county executive 3
ommittee had the right, power or 9
uthoIity to make nomination of any 6
flee, even county office, much less &
district office, and we presume there e
III be no attempt made to apply the 9
arty lash in this instance. q
W. a,Sa th;e "a