The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-06-11
TEL,L-TALE FIGURES.
Politicians Find Vote Sheets OF
Richmond Delegation Interesting

Politicians Find Vote Sheets OF
Richmond Delegation Interesting
The vote in the Richmond d 14e s:,z.od
as between Colonel John 5. hai 49, ~
and Mr. Clyde W. Saunders, LOT lllsuDs.
~ y the state Democratic Com mlttee'
Thursaay morning, was recorded ny sec
retary Nelson, and shows the dlvls sl.
~ the committeeman as between the t"o
iw,th FAIR accuracy. The division was 's'a
slSnown IL the members Of the delega tloh
With approximate certainty, even petoie
the test vote on the Fuller res I, .a :
and. in fact, the day after the deiesa.cs
were chosen, two weeks ago, ~ tit va We
Known how they stood as to their cholce
for committeeman. Mr. Saunders and
his friends claimed at that time forty
three or four OF the slxtY-one delesates,
and the claim WAS perhaps we'll founu Ve'l
At that time. With one absent and nott
renresented. Mr. Saunders received TWEEN.
ty-nine votes 70 twenty eight FOR Collohel
Harwood, thus leaving four eitler liot
voting or voting FOR both. The difference
between the claims Of Mr.. saunders s..a
his'friends anu the vote actually recorded
Is probably attributable to the tremen-
dous pressure brought to bear on many OF
the delegates to induce them to oppose
Mr.. Saunders. There We're many rumors
of such efforts to influence the delegates
to desert the ycung Clay Ward man, out
how well founded they are cannot De
stated with certainty.
Is a Bold Fighter.
Tho recorded vote. besides proving OF
interest, shows that representative clti-
zens from all tho wards voted for Mr.
saunders, as we'll as for Colonel HARDWOOD
They were all elected in a primary, ana
1t was the privilege of the voter to asoer-
~ ~ fn.. ~ IA
delegate before voting II he SO desired.
Few men would have concealed theF
preference. II tho opponents of Mr.. Saun-
h ders did not know they were voting FOR
him, his friends contend that this was
not Mr.. Saunderss fault, for even his
opponents admit that he is a bold, ag-
gresslve fighter and makes no conceal
ment or his attitude, Fills friends ran
for delegates In several precincts, and in
every instance defeated tho Parker Club
nominees, who We're believed to be hos
tile to him. These statements arc but
fair to all parties.
Here is tho vote for Mr.. Saunders and
Colonel HARDWOOD, as recorded, In somo
cases the vote being given by authorized
and accredited proxies or alternates
For saunders--Messrs. Samuel Steiner,
3. Hicks, NJ, /. Boyle Fl: Q, Gates, VIII
liam Timberlake. John T., Neagle, John
Il. Carter, John a., Curtis. r.. s. Tlller,
j. Keith. James Bahen, Jr, DR.. w. j.
r. "a q. Carlton ats H. B. Tho sS 3. Witt.
camp, r. G, Ebel. B. 3. Munford 8. Il
Kelley. Felix 1Seegan, B, G.. James. p. ~
Mccarthy, w. r. Leanlan, a. i, Griffith
and W. RI. Adams-29.
For Harwood--Messrs. c. II. Wiltshire,
Il. w. Evans, A. * Vest, Joseph w,
Thomas, II. II. Grimmell s. T.. p. Pate
son. C. V. Meredith, Fl. l.. Valentine. r,
ii. Cloves, r. l.. Winston, Eppa Hunton,
Dalton, G, L, Batkns. w. A.. Browning
j. NJ. Blanks. w. ]. Gilman, L. 3. Stern
Mann S. Valentine, James r.. Shepard
nj. r. Pace j. j. Mitchell. Jacob umlau!,
N. 4. Powers overs. IsaaG Dies, ordway Pull
Messrs. J. J. Lynch. 7. 2. Hicks and
Saunders and Harwoods making the total
SO to 81 In favor Of Mr., Saunders.
Tell Their Own Tale,
To those who care to study politics In
detail end to understand just how II hap
pened these names nay prove, interesting,
The vote of the Richmond delegation
for delegates at large to st, Louis was
as follows; For Daniel, 81; for Martin.
81; for Braxton. g; for Montague 50; for
there was ona other candidate IN nomina-
ton, Hon. Harry L. Maynard, but none
of fhe Richmond beleeates voted fJir hin,