The Thibodaux sentinel. (Thibodaux, La.) 1905-1912, 1909-01-16
The Vote Of Louisiana.

The Vote Of Louisiana.
Although the election t,
determine the presidential
contest took place early il
November, 1908, the oficia
direct vote was had, in so IA
as Louisiana is concerned, a
Observation-Disclosures
the provisions Of the law th,
people of the United Statel
do not vote directly for the
President. They cast theil
ballots merely for sets of cleo
tors which have been nomin
ated previously by the oppos
ing parties.
In Louisiana the electors re.
presenting the Democratic
party were nominated by a
convention held prior to the
Denver convention, and this,
we are inclined to believe,
was the case in a majority of
the States. Therefore, at the
time the electors received
their nomination they were
not certain who the candi-
date was whom thew were OK
pected to support. As they
were the nominees Of tho
same political party which
nominated the President.
their duty in the premises
was clear and in casting the
vote of Louisiana for Mr.. Bry-
an today they carried out in
good faith the obligation i'm
posed upon them in Nov. be-
cause they were Bryan cleo
tors.
1t has been urged that
there il nothing in the law
providing for the selection of
electors and prescribing their
duties that would prevent
them from bstraying their
trust and selling out to the
opposing candidate, and there
by possibly changing the en-
tire results in some closely
contested election. This, vel
believe, has never occurred in
the history of the American
government; although in 1876 |
the result Of the election was|
charged by purchase an l sets
of electors were installed who
had been defeated by the PEG.
pie, thus placing in the presi-
dency the candidate whose
election was secured Ey the|
most nnblushing fraud.
In the State of Maryland
there is now some contention
gre wing out of the fact that
while the majority of the
votes in the State, considered
in the aggregate, were cast
for the Bryan electors, yet
one or two districts elected
Taft electors. The contention
is pro and con as to whetherl
or not the whole electoral
vote should be given to thel
candidate receiving a plural
ity of the entire vote cast in
the State. The district system
of electing presidential cleo
tors makes that possible and
In every election we have
scattering electors captured 1
by minority candidates. uni,
less we change the whole
system and elect our Presi-
dent by direct vote Of the| j
Whole peorle-a plan which | !
=
ponents-it is probable that T
he district system will be all
owed to remain unchanged. /,
Some tins ago a suggestion II
vas made to the effect that 4
t would be the handscm u
hing for the electors from :.
he Southern States. in view q
t the fact that their candi-
ate had been defeated, to 4,
1st their votes unanimously :,
Or Mr.. Taft. OF course, such .
suggestion could not receive IL
7rlons consideration at the a
ahds OF electors who pro re
osed TO represent the people
'ho elected them. Such a pro- "
eeding would be absurd, for m
would mean only Il contam. -
IDLE trucking to the Vicious :"
leory that success justifies llt
,e means resorted to in or
Ct 70 achieve it; and that
'mporary defeat proves the d.
correctness of the principles ve
yer which the contest was MI
aged. Iu other word, it :.
ould be ia, adoption by the ST.
"arry 1T the slt- 4,
a tina might makes riel:.
,..y IT,. ;, ,,.,.,,, AZ
Cover the most monssruus crin;esi il,