Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1910-08-11


I There were many reasons why
| Charles Pendergast believed that John
| p. Orme should be nominated and
elected. One was because in the early
days they had cultivated together
| liking for pork and beans which they
| had esteemed a luxury.
| Ii. H. Linville nominated James C.
| Goodwin, whose Legislative experience
| had qualified him for the duties that
would fall to him in a constitutional
convention. Moreover" said Mr.. Lin
Vile, "he is a Missourian. Now don't
laugh
Isaac Rogers nominated ID. p. Jones
| of Lehi upon whom the Mesa, Lehi
and Alma people seemed to have com
| promised during the recess. But the
effect of their compromise was multi
| fled by the nomination of Orrin L.
Standage by p. E. Fuller of Mesa. Mr..
| Fuller took occasion to say that he
was a democrat of only two years
standing. Two years ago the republi-
| can party got too tough for him and
he had determined to be no longer
party to the oppression of the common
people.
Lysander Cassidy nominated Rev. ].
| 4. CrutchfieId, and DR.. H. A. Hughes
suggested the name of +. A. Jones.
| Two great blessings had come to PhOe-
nix, said DIR. Hughes, Mr.. Jones and
the Roosevelt dam. He would not I'M
l-fertake, for fear of making u mistake,
to say which had been the greater
godsend.
H. III. Mcneil nominated Sidney Os-
born as native son, only one of many
qualifications. This reminded the dele
gates that they had forgot to mention
that. Mr.. Standage was also a native
son and the convention reverted to that
order of business and there was
period of oratory touching the native
sons.
Other nominations were as follows:
DR. B. b. Mouer by II. q. Robertson;
Alfred Franklin, by +. II. Lyman; w
#. Smith, by w. Il. Lount; j. p. Bates,
by w. d. Bell III. NJ. Wellborn, by J.
p. Orme; w. B. Lount, by MA. Stan
ford, Charles c. Woolf, by j. II. Lang
ston, and C. NJ. Zander by DR.. Hughes
What is majority?
There were eighteen candidates
from whom nine were to be chosen
The report Of the rules committee had
shown that there were Isl delegates
entitled to votes in the convention and
it had recommended that successful
candidate must have majority of that
number But it was shown that only
1i5 delegates were present in person
or by proxy. and it was feared that
il the rule were adhered to the ballot
ing would be in progress all night. Ac-
cordngly the rule was amended so that
majority of las, or 7S votes. should
be sufficient to nominate. If the rule
had been allowed to stand subsequent
embarrassment would have been
avoided
When the count of the ballots col
lected by he telfers was begun and
when it was still well under way it
was doubted that the ballot would re-
suit in single choice, and there was
talk of dropping the low men on sub
sequent ballots.
Bv the time the count was half fin
ished ii was evident, that one or two
of the candidates would be nominated
little later it iappeared that one or
two more might getthrOugh and when
il was finished there was an astound-
ing result Ten had been elected,
whereas the county is allowed only
nine. fnE
An Astounding Result.
The following were the figures: Bak-
er. I12; Cassidy, S4;sOrme, SO; Ivy. 60;
Goodwin, "a: ID. Pr Jones, 70 Dust
enough); Standage, go; Crutchfield, 80;
F. A. Jones, rs; Mouer, 1923; Franklin.
101; Smith, 81; Bates, So; Osborn, 81;
WellbOrn. Al; Lount, 80; Wooif, p;
lander. So.
How this strange thing happened
no body could at first see, but little
later it was remembered that when
more than one man is voted for on the
same ballot, the majority is apt to get
complicated. There was an old con-
vention mathematical rule applying to
the case, but no one could remember it.
But under the rule of the committee
the chairman held that there had been
no election, and then there was an up
roar. There were many suggestions.
but they all went to what should have
been done and not what was now to
be done. ID. p. Jones offered to relieve
the situation, to withdraw and that
offer was quickly seized upon by the
majority of the delegates, but it did
not ulSDOSe OI lfle
that there had been no election under |
the rule. Finally the convention re-
fused to sustain the chair and the !
withdrawal of Mr. Jones was accepted. |
over the protest of a small minority.
The New Central Committee.
In the noon recess the various pre- |
cincts had selected their members Of |
the new committee and they were pre-
scented to the convention for ratifica-
ton. The basis of. representation had |
been raised so that the new commit |
tee is smaller than its predecessors. 1t |
is made up as follows. a few of the |
smaller precincts being without repre-
sentation. but that viii be supplied |
later
Phoenix No. III. A. Hughes, George /
Lutgerding, c. f. Leonard.
Phoenix No 2-H. II. Mcneil. f. H.
Lyman, v. L. Clark -
Phoenix No. S-W. d. Bell ]. L.
Irwin, NJ d. Novinger
Phoenix No. 4-Walter f. Brawner.
]. Bush, Teodoro Olea.
Tempe-W. A. Mouer. w. It. Cum
mings.
Mesa-James Miller, NJ ]: Dougher-
ty. w. n. stevenson.
Lehi--J. f. Saunders re-