The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1904-04-24

! Wandering that territory in order to get
control of the representation on this floor?
! And does not the gentleman think that it
/ would have been fairer that both parties
\ should have ben represented in laying out
J these districts.
/ Mr. Powers of Maine: Allow me to say
| that il is only in the Indian Territory
| where the elections are to be conducted
under the management of the judges; in
Oklahoma the elections will be conducted
! according to the laws prevailing there.
| Mr.. Stephensof Texas: But you would
| have no trouble in the Indian Territory in
| finding some rock-ribbed Democrats.
| Mr.. Powers OF Maine: Yes, We shall
| find some there: and not only that, but We
shall find a majority of Democrats in the
: convention that IS to be held.
Mr. STEPHENS of Texas: Then why not
| give US a fair deal.
Mr.. Powers of Maine: We have done SO.
Mr. Mcclure: 1t seems to me it is to be
presumed that the judges of the Indian
Territory will do their duty 1t seems TO
me it is to be presumed that they are
Going to provide districts in that terri
tory which are fair to all alike. l sup
pose il might be possible if those gentle
men were not honest if they were not
fair. il they wanted to take advkakntage
they could do so; but ! cannot under
stand how we could provide for a condi-
ton here that would make it different
Those gentlemen are Federal judges. and
it is presumed they will do their duty
/ presume il was the understanding and
the purpose of this committee that those
people should have this territory district
ed as fairly as possible, fair to all alike
without regard to political organizations.
Mr. Lloyd Do I understand the gen
tleman to say that there is any minority
representation anywhere except in the APP
pointment of one judge in each precinct.
in the holding of the election?
Mr.. Mcclure: No sir, at least 1 did not
intend to make any other statement.
Mr.. Lloyd: Then it is true that the
whole election machinery, as stated In the
views of the minority, is in the hands of
the dominant party. excepting only one
judge in each election precinct
Mr.. Mcclure: Yes and that is true to-
day in Oklahoma Territory and true in
every state in the Union where they have
general elections, excepting some sections
| might mention where there is no min
ority representation at all. In my own
territory there are some counties where
one political organization has d majority
upon the election board. In another coun-
ty where there is a majority of the other
political organization, that organization
has a majorit yupon the eelction board
The condition will exist in the Indian
Territory, and l cannot understand how
it could be avoided.
Mr. Robinson of Indiana: The gentle
man could appoint an election commits
sion composed of reputable members OF
the respective political parties. That is
the way 1t could be avoided.
Mr. Mcclure: L suppose it might be
done by appointing an even number, but
that is not usually done in the different
states.
Mr. Robinson of Indiana: You would
have a majority representation all right,
but that would give us some minority
representation, which is not now given by
this bill
AMIR Mcclure: There is now a minority
representation under the provisions of this
bill.
Mr. Smith of Kentucky: 1 should like
to ask the gentleman one question just
upon that point.
Mr. Mcclure: Yes.
Mr. Smith of Kentucky: How are these
commissioners of elections selected?
Mr. Mcclure: L will read the provisions
OF the bill.
Mr. Smith of Kentucky: / VII, not ask
you to do that, but are they 10 be nom
| mated by the chairmen of their respective
| committees in the counties? If not, why
not?
Mr.. Mcclure: 1t is left for the Federal
judges to provide the machinery, and it
provides for one election judge different
in politics or political convictions from
the other members of the board.
Mr. Smith of Kentucky: 1t looks to me
as though it would be fairer to let each
party select its own representatives.
Mr.. MCGUIRE: L presume that may be
done. There is nothing in this bill to
prevent that.
Mr.. Smith of Kentucky: We do that in
Kentucky. 1t has been the law there now
for several years.
Mr.. Lacey: / call attention to the fact
that this is only for this one election, and
it is a non-partisan election.
Mr.. Mcclure: Why, certainly, it is pre-
! sumed. | should think to be a non parti-
san election. This is only for the purpose
of electing delegates to the constitutional
| convention. And inasmuch as the cleo
ton machinery had to be made by the
parties preparing this bill, 1 do not see
where any improvement could be made
upon this provision.
Mr.. Robinson of Indiana: How can the
gentleman say it is a non-partisan mea-
! sure for election, for when the bill is
pressed through the house without suffi-
cient discussion or an opportunity for
amendment and then the enabling act
| goes there and clothes the Federal au-
,norities with the precincting. the dis
/ tricting and the canvassing of the re-
! turns-the Federal officers now there,
/ clothed with all the powers in Indian Ter
| ritory.
| Mr.. McGuire: will ask the gentleman
whether he did not at this session of con-
| gress himself introduce into this body a
| bill for the union of the Indian Territory
and Oklahoma Territory into one state?
! Mr.. Robinson of Indiana: Yes. fair
/ bill, and after the majority members upon
! the committee on territories had brough
I TO the committee this partisan measure. 1
managed TO get a few words OF the Robin
/ son bill into it, providing for one judge
upon the election boards, the only non
partisan feature in the whole election and
+ convention features
Mr.. Mcclure: 1 submit that number
of the provisions of the bill were taken
from the bill introduced by the gentleman
at this session OF congress The prnVis-
/ ion of the bill referred To is as follows: