The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-09-14
BEST THING IS S}6 SIDE W|JH TINS"
  0l''0 oO'''''''tee ~ Will Not ''''' 9AuthOrity GUN 'tS ANTS ALL LOST State Boz
 1y Is Averse to Going Behind Action Taken By County or lnlnor Com
 mlttee.

n1ttee.
 Montgomery. September 1s-(special)- There were two very distinct facts pre- sented at the meeting of the state demo- cratic committee in this city yesterday, and last night. The first was that the com nittee had no idea of depriving itself of any authority 1t may possess to exercise a supervisory oversight of the smaller party organizations of the state, and the other that in all cases of contest 1t is very comfortable and generally safe thing to be among the ins. Of the two contests from Perry county one from Houston and one from the northeastern chancery di- vision, not a single one of the contes- tants was successful, although each one employed as good counsel as 1t Is possible to obtain in the south
 Incidentally several other conditions were made manifest in the work before the committee that are of interest to every voter in the state. In fact, man with an eye out for signs could have se- cured enough to have filled pretty large political almanac if he had made sehed- ! state committee is averse to going be- hind any action of a county or other minor committed; another that there is not enthusiastic approval of the primary system of choosing state officers, for req son of the great expense if nothing more; another that hereafter provisions that govern county primaries are going to be much more rigid than before, and still an- other that the state body will not throw out the nomination of any man unless 1t Is shown that irregularity practiced, II such 1 is charged, was of enough scope to reduce the vote of the successful man below that 1 of a winning number.
 l Matter of Jurisdiction. The question of the jurisdiction of the state committee to try controversies from the lower organizations Of the party in the state arose because of the adoption of | the new primary election law, those op- | posing 1t contending that the law antlcl- pated that the counties should have exclu- sive control of the party affairs or the | county the statute providing Tor con- tests and stipulating that "said contests to be heard and tried by the couny exec utiye committee, or other governing hody in elections for county officers and dlstrlct and state committees, or governing pody in other elections.
 This was argued to tHedHJ anu ehS argument was made by outside counsel and not bv members of the committee, that in matters purely county in their scope the county committee was to be final. that part of the law referring to
 other governing bodies" being held to mean that 1t was only to apply when controversies of wider intent than county boundaries were up. It did not take the committee long to decide that 1t had t14fNx flaA ntn resolution to the effect that the commit tee did have appellate power and did possess the authority to take up and dis pose of the appeals.
 Ground of Contest.
 In the Houston county case the contest was based on the action of George Leslie, nominee for probate judge, in sending out tickets marked opposite his name. These tickets were exact reproductions of the tickets sent out by the committee and for which Mir. Leslie was taxed to print. It was not shown, however that the use of these tickets was fraudulent, consequently the contest was dismissed, so far as the state Is concerned, the &C., tion referring it back to the county com mittee After action in this case. how ever, the chairman of the committee, Col. H. s. D. Mallory, urged that here after each county so regulate its election machinery that there can be used only the tickets provided by the committee. He thought the action in Houston dan gerous, though he had no criticism to make on the action of the state commit tee In seating Mir. Leslie.
 Law Not Kept.
 In the Perry case 1t was charged that the ballots of one beat had not been numbered, that the managers had held the election one day and counted the vote the next, leaving the box where 1t could have been reached and opened dur ing the night. and that the lock on the box could have been opened even with a hair pin. It was shown, however, that there were not enough votes contested to have defeated either MT. Howell Tor tax assessor, or Harris for circuit clerk, and the action of the county committee in declaring them the nominees was de- clared legal.
 Chancellor's Case.
 In the case of the chancellor of the northeastern chancery division. 1t was argued that the committee of the divis- ion had no right to nominate W. w. Whitesldes or any other man to the va cancy caused by the death of Harry J. Gillian, and If 1t did have the right the committee was not legal in that it was not properly selected
 The other side argued that there had been provision made for one primary; that was held April 12, at which MT Gillian was nominated, and there was no authority to hold another; also that 1t would cost over sSO00 to hold primary in the sixteen counties of the division and candidates were not able to bear the additional expense
 The array of talent in this case was strong, as it was conceded that on il was resting some very important party i law, and as a result of the action in its disposal there would be made some f valuable party precedents. General ', George F. Harrison and Messrs. R. R :. Barnes and T. D. Sanford of Opeliks Y appeared for the contestant, the Hon. F e M. Oliver, while Hon. Cecil Browne oi s Talladega, recognized as one or the finest @ lawyers in the state, spoke for the ac- }, ton of the committee, being supported } in an advisory way by Mir W. P. Acker of Anniston, chairman of the division I committee, which had nominated MT = Whitesides.
 '- The Hon. w H. Stamford of Troy a