Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-11
DISTRICT DEMOCRATS
Brief of the Slater Faction
Submitted.
MR.. NORRIS ELECTION
HIS MEMBERSHIP ON COMMIT
TEE NOT ADMITTED.
Charges in Connection With the Pri-
maries of 1900 Petitions for
Reference to Voters.
Mr.. NORRIS ELECTION

The brief in behalf of the Slater faction
of the local democracy has been filed with
the subcommittee of the democratic ma
tionaI committee, which will meet here on
the 18th instant at the Shoreham to hear
further evidence bearing on the contro-
versy among democrats of the District of
Columbia.
Mr. James L. Norris has already pre-
scented his brief to the subcommittee bear
ing on his side of the case. He did not
have the charges of the Slater faction at
the last meeting of the subcommittee, so
that 1t is believed the brief. which con-
tains various allegations, will call forth
supplemental brief or statement from Mr.
Norris.
The brief of the Slater faction is signed
by ]. A Collins, as chairman of the dem
ocratic central committee of the District
of Columbia" j. Frank O'Meara, VIM. f
Carr. Charles w. Slater and T. z. O'Dea.
executive board District democratic cen
trail committee. 1t is addressed to John T.
McGraw chairman; James NJ. Gufey, w.
w Gourley Norman f. Mack and ]. Tay-
Tor Ellyson, subcommittee of the demo
cratic national committee on the District
of Columbia.
Norris Membership Not Admitted.
The brief opens by declaring that the
case before the subcommittee is not con-
test, as the right of Mr.. Norris to member
ship on the national committee is not adj
mitted.
Admitting for the sake of argument.
the brief states, that the order of bust
ness. the conduct of the primaries. the local
convention, etc. of 1900. all conducted
under the auspices of the so-called demo-
cratic (Norris) central committee. were reg
ular in every particular, what matters 1t at
The highest tribunal of
party, the national convention, from Whlch
there can be no appeal has passed upon
this whole matter and has found that the
two delegations to the national convention,
the two local conventions which sent said
delegations. and the central committees
which called said conventions, were equal In
regularity. and that the wish of the democ-
racy of this District was equally divided
between them. The case. so far as the hap
penins or non-happening of anything prior
to the last national convention is con-
Cerned is res adjudicata- The function OF
your honorable body, as We understand it,
is to ascertain the present wish of the ma
jority of the democrats of this District and
then to carry that wish out Is II any more
certain that the selection by your honor
able BODY of a person to represent the Dis
trict on the national committee is apt to
meet with more approval than the recent
appointment made by the chairman of the
now occurrences which TRANSFERRED four
years ago and were finally and for all time
settled by the national convention of our
party is to resurrect dead issues, and this
your honorable body will not do.
I'VE take up and answer in detail the
brief fled on behalf of Mr.. Norris, not be
cause the propositions stated therein ere
hive and applicable to the present siiua-
ton. but simply because we believe your
honorable body would like to have our an
$wer thereto as a matter of information 20
assist You in the determination of the case
ycu have in hand"
Call in 1900 Was Not Regular
The claim that the call for the primary
election Of 1900 was regular is denied.
because, as alleged. the democratic voters
had but three days notice of the election,
although the date had been decided on TWO
weeks. This. it is claimed. was not sufti-
cent notice to democrats living in distant
parts of the District of Columbia. 1t is
charged that the notice was withheld in
order to make impossible attendance at the
polls of many democrats
The order of business for the primaries
of 1860 was not published by the commit
tee officially" the brief states land was
known only by the members of the so
called democratic tNorris) central commit
tee and their chosen few in each district.
and the rank and file democrats were to
get the information when they arrived at
the polls, and there to find that the secre-
tary, judges and cl-rk had been appointed
through the ms rumentalty of the o called
central committeeman.
And right here we beg to call to the
earnest attention and consideration of your
honorable body the fact that each mem-
her of this so-called democratic (Norr.s)
central committee in fifteen 80 out of the
twenty-five t22) legislative districts
wholesome ma jority. was a candidate for
election as delegate TO the local District
convention.
Further, four of the six delegates, ex-
elusive of Mr.. James l.. Norris to the
democratic national convention, We're mem
bers Of the so-called democra tic CNorr's 81
central committee in addition to being
members of the so-called central commit
tee and delegates to the local District con-
Yention-"
1t Is claimed that there We're no rules
for the government of the primaries of 1890.
Polling Places Not Accessible.
1t is denied that % coo democratic votes
were cast in the primary elections Of that
year The committee denies that the poll
ing places were located so as to be access
ale to majority of the voters
at seems to u.s. continues the brief
that the committee on credentials of the
Kansas City convention passed upon all
this when the great mass of evidence con-
tanning affidavits of more than 900 re-
sponsible and worthy citizens were placed
before ii. showing specific fraudulent acts
at the polls. and demonstrating that pro-
test upon protest was made whenever and
as often these acts were committed All
this. We say, has been acted upon by that
committee on credentials and the national
convention, and the sum result of all the
primary elections and conventions in the
District of Columbia in 1900 was the seat
Ing OF twelve delegates in the Kansas City
convention, each delegate being allowed
half a vote. And under this condition each
delegate had a right to participate in the