Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-06-02
GROUNDS FOR CONTEST
Alleged Improper Action Of Elections
Commissions end Composition Of
Central Committee.

The Hearst democrats of the District OF
Columbia appear to be confident Of success
IN securing representation in the national
convention to meet at st. Louis July O.
The SIX delegates selected by the Hearst
people after they bolted the democratic
primary convention have been making up
their case as they will present It at st.
Louis. a ~ "a
They will urge among their claims for
recognition two features Of the democratic
primary convention, which they declare
were Irregular and against the rules and
practice that should have guided the Dis
trfct democracy.
Action Of Election Commission.
The first of these relates to the manner
adopted for passing upon the credentials Of
delegates to the local primary convention.
The rules laid down by the subcommittee
OF the national democratic committee for
the conduct of the primary election in the
District provided that the elections COM
mission authorized by the subcommittee
should decide all contests before the per-
manent organization of the convention, so
that when the convention should be called
to order there should be no question pend.
Ing relating TO the credentials of its men,
bers.
The elections commission was composed
OF Edwin Seton, Cotter T. Bride, J. Holds
..
When this commission received the creden-
tials OF contending delegations 1t declined
by an unevenly divided vote to take them
up. Messrs. Gordon and Matthews, known
as Norris men. voted against deciding the
contested cases. and then the attorneys
representing both the Hearst and the Nor
r1s factions agreed that the contested cases
should go to the convention. to be deter
mined by Its committee on credentials. The
Norris faction will lay stress upon the fact
that this course was taken with the ap-
prevail of Mr.. Ralston, acting for the
Hearst people, and also that the subcom-
mittee of the national committee in framing
rules for the guidance of the local elections
commission empowered that commission to
change the rules In its discretion.
Composition Of Central Committee.
Another claim Of the Hearst people Is that
the democratic central committee elected
by the primary convention was not made
UP of delegates WHO had been elected from
each of the twenty-five districts represented
Oh the committee. In fifteen districts Nor
ris men were elected and In seven districts
Hearst men wereSchosen as acknowledged
by the convention According to the Hearst
men they should have had seven of the
twenty-five members of the democratic
central committee: but as that committee
was formed, mot any of the Hearst dele
gates who bolted the convention were
placed on it, This the Norris people claim
was propers course of procedure. as the
convention had authority to elect the CEN
trail committee without restriction.
On the part OF the Hearst faction 1t Is con-
tended that the subcommittee of the ma
uonal committee in framing the rules for
the primary elections did not specifically
provide that, delegates elected from each
district should go on the central committee,
as they understood that practice to prevail
and believed 'itswousd' be adhered to.