The Mt. Sterling advocate. (Mt. Sterling, Ky.) 1890-current, 1907-11-27
The SenatOrShip.

gaging the attention of the Ken
lucky press. In this discussion
the Republican papers have had
much to say. 1t is clear that they
are seeking to draw all Democrats
into the controversy and embitter
them against their leaders and the
candidates upon the ticket who
were defeated. Their ultimate
purpose is to defeat the Democrat
ic nominee for Senator and elect
Republican to that high office.
The primary was legally called
by the constituted authority of the
party. Whether a primary or
convention should have been called,
was a matter exclusively within
the discretion of the Executive
Committee. Each of these meth
DDS had its advocates. If the
committee erred in adopting the
primary instead of the convention,
it affords no sufficient reason now
for Democrats to refuse to support
its nominees. Senator McCreary
and Governor Beckham (the only
candidates for Senator) each ex-
pressed his perfect willingness to
submit his candidacy to the Demo
Gratis of the State, and abide the
results of the primary. They can
vassed the State at great expense,
time and labor. The primary was
held, and every Democrat had the
opportunity to express his choice.
The result was a very large ma
jority for Governor Beckham. He
thus became, and was declared by
the Executive Committee the
Democratic nominee for United
States Senator. He was manifest
ly the choice of the party, and un-
der the party law is entitled to the
support of every loyal Democrat.
The suggestion to ignore this
nomination and call caucus of the
Democratic members of the Gen
eral Assembly to make another
nomination, comes from the Cou-
rier-Journal. The reason assigned
by the Courier-Journal why Dem
ocratic Senators and Representa-
tives should fail to support Gov
ernor Beckham, is that be contrib
uted to the defeat of the State
ticket. Why the Courier-Journa
should now exhibit such solicitude
for that ticket is passing strange,
when it is remembered that it re-
fused to support either the State
or municipal ticket at the last cleo
ton.
But does this paper occupy a
position to dictate or even suggest
to the Democrats Of Kentucky
what course they should pursue in
this matter q! While every true
Democrat in the State was engaged
in the late campaign in behalf of
the ticket, the Courier Journal re-
fused to speak a word for it. 1t
turned its back upon the nominees
of the party. The very fact that,
while claiming to be Democratic
paper, it refused to support the
State ticket, was as damaging as
open opposition. Why should the
Democrats of Kentucky follow the
lead of the Courier-Journal in this
revolutionary movement
In the contests in the State and
Nation, it has been controlled
alone by the caprice of its editor.
Party obligations rest lightly upon
his shoulders. He refused to sup
port the nominees on the State
ticket. 1t is not strange that he
should oppose the nominee for
Senator. But why a legislative
caucus to nominate a Senatorial
candidate 1t is no doubt true
that every Democratic member of
the General Assembly has express.
ed his choice for Senator. This
was done in the primary. Was
that primary mere child's play,
binding only in the event that the
choice of each voter was success
full Was it a political game of
heads / win, and tails you lose ?