The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-27

delegate in any of the lists he shall make x cross mark in the circle at the head of the delegation left of the marginal line.
 If the voter desires to vote a split ticket, that Is for delegates on different list, he shall make x cross mark op- posite name of each delegate for whom he desires to vote, in such case the voter is entitled to vote for nineteen Q9) dele- gates.
 "Sixth-The several managers and clerks shall make a true return of the votes cast for delegates, the same as for other officers, which returns shall be canvassed by this convention.
 ''The nineteen uO delegates receiving the highest vote in the County shall be declared the delegates from Montgomery County to the State Convention to be held May 25, next"
 Members of Revenue Board.
 MT. Shackelford introduced resolution which he said, he presented by request The resolution was as follows: Resolved, That the members of the Board of Revenue shall be voted for by the county at large and those in each district, who shall receive the largest number of votes In the county at large shall be declared the nominee to represent that district provided the nominee shall be a resident of the district from which he is nominated.
 Mir. Pettus was again opposed to any change The old plan was good enough for him. and he opposed the resolution.
 Mir. Shackelford explained that he had presented the resolution by request and that he, too, was opposed to IL.
 "The county has been divided into rev enue district he said. "Wny not carry out the intent of the law?" Will not the man chosen from nh district represent the entire county on the board If so, why not let the entire county vote on him?" asked Mir. Gil- mer.
 He does represent the entire county" said MT. Shackelford, but each member of the Legislature represents the whole State, and legislators are chosen by the voters, of one county"
 MT. Hill asked the committee if there was any reason why each voter in the county should not be given a chance to vote on all members of the Board of Rev. enue.
 This county is divided into revenue districts" said MT. Arlington, land the law provides that one member shall come from the established districts. Now, if the member from one district is selected by the county he will not fully represent his district as some other man in the dis trict may receive more votes.'
 'I move that the whole business be re- ferred back to the people that first brought up this Board of Revenue biisi- ness," said MT. Gilmer. His motion, however, was ruled out of order
 The resolution was adopted by a vote of 12 ayes and nays. The holders of three of the proxies were excused from voting as they explained that they did not know the sentiments of the members who gave the proxies on the questions.
 Chairman Rushton reminded the com mittes that the election of members of the committee was close at hand. He suggested that the members of the com mittee who were not going to be candi- dates for reelection should file with him the names of men suitable as their sue ceSsors.
 Upon motion of MT. Jackson the judge of probate was given $75 of the commit tees funds to pay him for having lists of registered voters and of those who had their poll taxes paid made out.
 The committee adjourned to meet again the Thursday following the primary.