The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-09-08


 separate ticket had been distributed at
 Brantley. He submitted circulAr communication, sent out by a number I of lawyers of Crenshaw County. say | ing the lass ballot was legal
 1 Look at this band of briefiess bar risters, displaying concrete Ignorance in all It's pristine purity. To my cer- l tain knowledge only ono of these brief less barrfsters has ever had a case in court.
 A laugh ran around the room at this. But Colonel c. R. Bricken, one of the attorneys in the case, interrupted MT. l Brooke to ask him if this attorney and that attorney whose name had been signed to the circular, mad as a matter of fact had practice in the Crenshaw County Court. Secretary Routon came in later and was questioned as to the filing Of the name of Mr. Holland. with the County Committee Mir. Hollands name was filed with the committee. but according to Mir. Routon's recollection, the name was filed three days less than two weeks required by law.
 The case having been closed, Mir. Whitson moved the tabling of the mo- tion of dismissal of Judge Richardson. This was, in effect. upholding the con tention of Mir. Brooke. In doing so, how ever, he recalled an editorial in The Crenshaw County Critic shortly after the late State Convention.
 Brooke's Appeal Dismissed.
 "As I remember it," said Mir. Whit son., that editorial declared I had never been heard of until I was selected as chairman of the convention 1t said further that I had raped every known law of parliamentary, proceedings 1 dare say that before I am done. Judge Richardson will say that in this thing have raped every law of equity and justice. But I can not forebear to point out that we adopted certain rules and regulations for the government of the primary, and that we should sustain ttose rules According to our regula- tions. the names of those who were to be voted for as delegates should be in the hands of the Secretary of the County Committee fifteen days before the primary. It is evident that the rame of MT. Holland was not so flled. The minutes of the committee state Mir Holland was elected a delegate. provided those ballots, which were unr der question, were counted. But were those ballots legal? They had not been sent out by the committee and the rames upon them were not filed with the committee. To nay thinking, they V ere illegal, and I move the dismissal of Judge Richardson's motion.
 Mir. Whitson received no second to his motion.
 Leon McCord differed from Mir. Whit son. It was not denied that Demo- crats had voted both tickets. It was shown that Mir. Holland had received thirty-seven more votes than dld MT. | Brooks He did not see how the com l mittee could disfranchise those Demo- ! crats who had voted for Mr. Holland. | Moreover. spaces were left so that any | vc ter could write In a name of a man | he wanted for delegate He saw no | reason why man could not vote a | printed name.
 He moved the appeal of Mir. Brooke | be dismissed. The only vote cast | against the motion was the vote of Mr. | Whitson. It was then after o'clock, | and the committee adourned until S:30 l o'clock In the evening.
 At 8 late hour the contest for the | shrievalty nomination of Walker Coun- | ty was still being fought out in com- nittee.