The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1910-04-29
No Grounds for Challenge.

The Nashville Banner has an article
which we reproduce in this issue, rela-
tive to Governor Patterson's challenge.
The Governor proposes to meet a repre-
sentative of the organized Statewide
Democra ~ and agree on alterations to
the primary plan already set forth by
the State committee. The Banner says
that the Governor is challenging
straw man, that the only party organi-
cations are the executive committees,
ane no one else is authorized to speak
for the party or any Of its factions,
that the Governor makes mistake in
speaking Of separate organization,
therefore his challenge is made to
straw man. Upon this theory the Gov
ernor is shielding himself from the
mistakes in the primary call lately is
sued. 1t is very plain that no one is
authorized to make terms for the State
wide Democrats, and furthermore we
presume there is no Democrat, or State
wider, who feels that he is justified in
speaking for those who comprise that
faction of Democrats in the State. The
proper course for the Governor would
have been to request the State Demo-
cratic Executive Committee to meet
again and revise its call and then go to
the Democrats of the State for ratifca-
ton They should separate the judiciary
from the other primary and should SO
amend that part of the call which pro-
vides for the naming of delegates by
three men in each county to plan by
which these delegates can be elected by
the Democratic voters II the Govern
or had done that nobody could have
driven the State-widers away from the
primary. More than that State-widers
would have no protest to make and
would readily fall into line. According |
to the late primary plan the principle
Of appealing to the voice of the Demo-
cratic masses would be a nudity It is
true that they could vote, but would
have no voice in the selection of dele
gates and therefore no right in the
Of the Democratic nominees,
in the making of the platform and in
The selection Of party organization.
The primary recently promulgated
BY the State committee practically |
eliminates Democratic voters from any
ioice or choice at all. The very purpose
which the Democratic party has sought
through the medium of its primary
elections is avoided, and therefore the
Patterson primary is not only arbitrary
ind altogether unfair, but it is wholly
and not binding on the
-oter. 1t behooves the State committee,
Without waiting for response to Patter-
on Is challenge, to meet at once or as
DON as practical and rescind the objec-
ionable features of the primary call they
AVE adopted They, the members OF
he committee, know that no one man or
ct Of men are authorized to speak for
tate-wide Democrats, and they know !,
that only two main obiec- :
ons have been pressed against the pri- i
nary call. One is the election OF the !,
Idiciary at the same time with other i
tate candidates, and the other is the
lanner Of selecting delegates TO the ;
tate convention. These two things !,
roperly revised and issued, and no :
in the State could refuse to i
lter and abide by the call. 1t not !;
nly behooves the State committee to !;
} this, but il is their solemn and sacred !,
ity as Democrats to do so. As far as +,
e are concerned there is no such de- :,
and for the separation of the judi r.
airy as there is in the right Of the voter =,
the election OF delegates. Give such !,
tier a right to vote and decide who !,
Iall be his delegates to the State con- j,
'ntion and no Democrat has right to j
'otest II this is not done there will !,
sreafter be chaos and confusion in the !;
ranks in Tennessee. 4,
1
fsll I IN g., .,s,1 - 49,. i-:,,I -