The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-10-07
FORMER CHAIRMAN
 GIVES HIS VIEWS
THOMPSON DISCUSSES QUESTION OF JURISDlCTloN-oNLY THE NEW COMMITTEE COULD HEAR CONTEST OF JUDGE STILES.

To the Editor of The Age-Herald.
 The bitter contest for sheriff which has been waged since August 2 between has unfortunately caused much dissension | among democrats, and now threatens dis ruption to the party; and can but be de- plored by all good citizens.
 This dissension seems to be due, at least in part, to the erroneous idea that the county executive committee has exceeded it's authority in entertaining this contest, and that 1t had no right to try the same. The contention is also made that the pres ent committee had no right to go behind the action of the former committee.
 Let us see what the facts are. On the 18th day of September the county execG- tive committee met to canvass the returns of the election held on the proceeding day, but the committee was unable to complete the count on that date and adjourned un til the following day, September 19, when the result was declared. On the face of the returns Colonel IIgdon received majority of three in q total vote of 95O9. Section 29 of the primary election law declares that any candidate may contest the result of the election as shown on tine face of the returns within five days after the result of the election is declared Said section of the primary election law pro- vides that such contest shall be tried by the county executive committee.
 After the certificates of result of the several precincts had been canvassed and the result of the election declared and the business of the old committee completed l the committee then canvassed the result of the vote for committeeman and de- clared the election of the members of the new committee. This was done on Sep tember 19 and not on September IS as has been stated Now coneeding that any can didate had the right to contest a right which the law gives him in express terms, to whom should he take his contest? The law directs him to the executive commit tee. And bear in mind there can be but one committee. After the 18th of Septem- Der the old committee no longer existed, 1t having declared the new committee duly l elected as the executive committee for the ensuing term of four years It Is not | to the personnel, not to the individuals l the contest Is taken and the committees authority could only be questioned by 1 raising a question of the legality of It's | election, which has never been done in this case But we are not in doubt in this case as to whose duty 1t Is to try the l contest as the, state democratic executive committee has Just directed in a similar | case from Walker county where the case was appealed to that committee on the pt,1 f1an old committee should hear and determine the contest.
 And as q further precedent in support of this contention the new state committee on the third day of tho present month (and only one day before the present county committee met to hear this con tesD met in Montgomery and tried and | determined the contest of Compton vs. Harris. The committee hearing and de- terminlng this contest was the new and not the old state committee. To deny tho right of the new committee to try the contest. which Is the only committee n existence, Is to deny the right of contest.
 The county committee possesses the in | herent right to try and determine any and all contests for nominations within the party. If this were not so the party would have no means of purging the elec- ton of fraudulent votes. The right of the present committee to try and determine the present contest seems to me beyond all reasonable doubt. If we test 1t by the practices and precedents of the party, or by the law, or by the rules of common sense It is an unfortunate condition of affairs but democrats who love their party, should inform themselves of all the facts before condemning the execu- tive committee, who I believe are all hon est men and good democrats. They are men who give their time to the party without compensation and in most cases without hope of reward. and when they have been compelled to discharge a dis agreeable public duty they are at least entitled to respectful hearing before being | condemned. Respectfully,
 B. A. THOMPSON. | October 6, 1906