The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-14

RhNeS Bdl pated in by MT. Mullins of Chiffon, Mir. Stevens of Mobile and Mir. Smith of Greene.
 Chairman Mallory held that Mir. Smiths motion was out of order. The motion of Mir. Stevens providing a method of procedure. was then adopt ed without dissent and J. Lee Long lege of the floor to present the facts in support of the petitioners who de- sire that the action of the District Committee be annulled and set aside.
 MT. Long Presents Case.
 MT. Long said he was merely bus mess man and not a speaker. He read the protest. which had been filed with the tive committees. The petition, he said, was signed by the chairman and all the members of the Butler County Democratic Committee, all county offi- cials and many citizens Of Butler coun- ty.
 Replying to the statement of Col onel Wiley that the action of the first meeting of the District Committee was ratified by second meeting of the committee, Mir. Long said that only four members of the District Commit tee were present at either of these meetings. the other five members of the committee being represented by proxy, and that the proxies were passed upon by a minority of the committee.
 Mfr Long read an affidavit from A. E. Gamble, the District Committeeman from Butler county, In which he swore that the first meeting of tlU District Committee was attended by four regular members of the commit tee W. A. Hendehson of Montgomery, J. T. Bradshow of Covington. o. c. Wi ley of Pike, and the affiiant. The sec ond meeting was attended by only four members of the committee, Messrs Henderson, Wiley, J. O. Sen tell of Crenshaw and the affiant. All others attending tho committee meet ing held proxies.
 The speaker said that the petition 1 was not in the interest of any candi- date, but that one. MT. Hall. had de- sired to be candidate and had until March 9th to qualify. He then present. ed an affidavit from J. B. Stanley. edi- tor of the Greenville Advocate, show 1 ing that the names of the managers | of the Second district election were | in type and ready to be printed on March 2nd.
 Mir. Long said that no legal election notice had been given in Butler Coun-
 ty.
 Mir. Thach Moves to Dismiss. At the conclusion of MT. Longs | showing, MT. Thach, of Jefferson nov | Su tHdL Lue pcLlllOu LouhlSA SOAh~ | ty be dismissed.
 Mr. Stephens thereupon made an ar gument in support of the petition. He | said that 1t had been indisputably | shown that the Second district com mittee had acted at two meetings with out a majority of the committee pres ent. He did not think that the State Committee could endorse this conduct of the District Committee. H- aIr AEr if hn did not think that the District Com l mittee could have acted regularly with | proxies.
 Mir. Stevens said he did not think so as 1t was not shown that majority | was present to pass on the proxies. ! He did not believe that an executive committee could proceed regularly with proxies. He thought that a member of I the Legislature, or the Governor or a Supreme Court Judge had as much right to step down and delegate the | authority vested in him by the people 1 as had an executive committeeman of | the Democratic party. It was an un- | sound principle, he said, to allow prox- i ies in committee meetings and 1t was
 still more unsound to recognize the ac-
 tion of q minority at committee to | pass on proxies.
 | Mir. Driver of Chambers, and MT. Thach of Jefferson. questioned Mir. Ste- | vens as to the practice of the State | Committee relative to proxies. MT. | Stevens did not know that the State | Committee had ever recognized prox- | les. He was informed that the com mittee did so up to about sixteen years ago.
 Be that as 1t may" declared MT. Stevens, If the committee recognized proxies now, would be opposed to | 1t as it is wrong"
 MT Stevens said two names had been mentioned, those of Mir Hall and Colonel Wiley. It was not his privi-
 lege to know MT. Hall and Colonel Wi- | ley was his friend. but his position
 was taken solely on the ground of principle.
 Mir. WhitsOn Opposes Dismissal. Mir. Whitson of Talladega supported
 the argument of Mir. Stevens. He ar gued that the State Committee had | Jurisdiction in the matter as the pe- | titioners were protesting against the l action of the District Committee, and could not get relief from that source. He insisted that while the District Committee was empowered to order primary, the State Committee exercis- l ed supervisory power over all sub l ordinate committees.
 Mir. Whitson went over the legal as poets of the case. and said that 1t was | but just and fair that reasonable time l should be given candidates in which to prepare for a Democratic primary. He declared that an unreasonable | tax should not be imposed on candi- dates, saying that If Democrats could
 not be found to serve as managers and | inspectors of Democratic primaries,
 without pay. the primary system
 might just as well be abandoned. This 1 declaration was applauded. The principle enunciated in the argument of Mir. Stevens, Mir. Whit
 son said, was unanswerable. He dis cussed the matter of proxies and said | that 1t would be a dangerous prece-
 dent to allow a minority of any or ganization to pass upon the validity | of proxies to be voted in such organ nations to support his argument. There can De no proxy-there can | be no such thing as a proxy" declared MT. Whitson, Until there has been an acceptance of that proxy by the proper authority to accept that proxy" He said that this rule was 8 rule of parliamentary pHactice 'as old as the hills"
 MT. Thach Cites Custom.
 MT. Thach of Jefferson, spoke in fla vor of dismissing the petition. He said that if a committee could not act by proxies it could hardly act at all
 ''I have been on Congressional Com mittees," said Mir. Thach, when we did not have but two of us present. and we acted and I think we acted very well, at that"
 This frank admission of MT. Thach caused laughter
 Mir. Thach who has a droll way of speaking, said that if there had not been but one member of the commit