The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1906-05-25
MORE ABOUT MON
DAYS CONVENTION

: plete your news, and comment on
some of it, and on some of your edi-
torial.
1t seems worth while for me to say
that 1 believe many of your faction,
which as we see it is in effect, Cox
faction, have the interests of Maury
County at heart, and / claim as much
for the Patterson faction.
1t is to be presumed that both fac
lions are Democrats acting in good
faith, and when this is true have it
not in me to designate anything done
by my fellow Democrats as wild and
woody"
l must assert however, since reading
your report, that not all of the noise
was made by the Patterson faction,
and that the contentious spirit" was
not exclusively ours; for you rejected
our proposition to give you half the
vote of the County rather than have
contest and a disorderly convention
and, in defiance Of our action. members
of your faction yelled Justify for Cox
as we left the hall after we had ad-
journed.
Now, as to some of the things done
| by the convention, before DR.. Collins
was recognized as Chairman When
! Chairman Ramon decided that the
count should be taken by old districts,
| the Patterson faction not only pro-
tested but filed at the same time
written protest against such action,
and said protest was signed by twelve
of the Dem Elk Committeeman OF
Maury County.
This protest was filed with me, as
one of the Secretaries at that time,
acting by the consent of every one
present.
The Patterson delegation protested
against the five votes of the 9th Dist,
being placed by Mr. Ramon (who was
neither a delegate nor a committee
mani, in the Grove column rather than
the Collins column, and at the same
time filed the certificate of Jno. M.
Burns, one of the 9th Dist Committee
men, which certificate is to the effect
that said vote was represented by
Patterson delegates.
One other vote was also protested
as being in the Grove column, for
similar reason.
Further, when the Chairman called
for the count on the vote for Chair
man, he addressed, not only Mr.. Har-
der, the other Secretay, but addressed
both Mr.. Harder and myself, Mr..
Harder announced the vote for tempo
rary chairman, q to II in favor Of
Grove, and | announced the vote as
was counted by me- That my voice
was not heard by the Chairman is
evident. But as soon as Mr.. Harder
announced p to II Mr.. Ramon began
to get himself out of the chair. and
make an effort to seat Mr.. Grove.
When my announcement of the
count as called for by Chairman Kan
non, was heard, as in their favor, the
Patterson faction Immediately placed
their Chairman on the rostrum and
proceeded as related by me in yes
terday's paper.
As to the men you try to make seem
so small by saying that they were for
neither Cox nor Patterson, they talked
one way and voted another, and one
felt "he had to go with the crowd and
such like "littleness you knew when
you published that piece that | was
the one most referred to, that | sim
cerely believed it was a question of
either Cox or Patterson, and that was
for Patterson, and also that ! was the
one that made the remark about the !
Lander ticket, the one that gave you
the frank reply.
Why did you not in fairness to the |
Patterson faction call my name and |
express what you said as a person |
atty rather than seek to saddle"
the faction with my opinions?
Did you not then know that my |
opinion was Overwhelmingly voted |
down in the councils of the Patter-
son faction?
l assert that you did know the same
to be a fact and that you are con-
demning me for being democratic
enough to submit to majority opin
ion
I am glad to see that you however,
are also democratic and that you will
not bolt the Cox convention because
they have thrown out the Lander
ticket, which both you and person
ally think should under the resolu-
ton, stand. But I do not see how
that convention can declare the dele
cation on the long mo instructions"
ticket elected when that ticket re-
ceived less votes than the Patterson