Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1911-07-21
COL. STREET DISCUSSES CAUCUS
SPEAKER of the House of the Legislature Says 1t Was
Like Other Democratic CauCuses.

lower house OF the legislature, has
written the following letter in refer
ence TO the Democratic caucus of 1910
that is of interest to every voter In
Mississippi:
Meridian, Miss, June 26, 1911.
Messrs. Shannon 4 Street, Laurel, Miss.
Gentlemen lave yours of recent
date, asking me to write what 1 know
about the legislative caucus during the
session Of 1910 and how it compared
with previous Democratic There
was nothing that came under my OBJ
servation during the caucus that any
honest participant should wish to con-
ceal, and the only reason that I lave
not replied to the remarkable statements
made by disappointed parties is my aver
sion to engaging in a controversy at a
time when the minds of many people
are SO poisoned with passion and preju-
dice that statements not in accord with
their ~preoonceived opinions are not cred
tied.
l have been more or less in public life
for over forty years. My seventy-ninth
year is nearly half gone, and my part
in state affairs must soon end. If T
could close my eyes on a peaceful and
happy state, where every voter was
guided by his conscience and Judgment,
my end would be welcome, rather than
live in the present turmoil. We should
all seek the truth and be controlled
by it.
In January, 1894, Senator Walthall
resigned his seat in the United States
senate. In December, 1909, Senator Nc
Laurin died. In both cases 1T devolved
upon the legislature to fill the vacancy
without instruction from the people. In
both instances a caucus was called to Sc
lect a successor. In 1894 there were
twenty Populists in the legislature. In
1910 all claimed to be Democrats. This
was a matter bearing on the propriety
or necessity of calling a caucus, but
had no bearing o. the manner of voting
after the caucus was assembled, for in
both cases the caucus was composed of
Democrats only, and the people had as
much right in one case as the other to
know how their representatives voted.
In 1894 I remember of no objection
whatever to a vote by ballot and that
method was adopted Each member pre-
pared his own ballot and dropped it in
the box. In 1910 the names were all on
one ticket, and the voter put a cross
opposite the name of his choice. While
I do not know why this method was
adopted I believed it was done to shut
out dark horses, and while it may have
hit me. I had no right to object. It was
intended to and did improve the chances
of every man on the ticket.
There were two calls for a caucus.
The first intimation 1 had of q caucus
was from a leading Vardaman man. He
said the call provided for a viva voce
vote and that I should preside. Tho
other was unconditional and was signed
by 1877 members out of a total of 49,.
I presume the latter was not presented
to all, as there were Vardaman and
anti-Vardaman men whose names were
not on it..
The general call for the caucus was
as follows:
Whereas, More han one form of call
for Democratic caucus to nomiante a
candidate for United States senator has
been circulated and signed, therefore,
"To avoid confusion, and exercising
only such authority as may be conferred
I'll liz ny III VI 6C1O S0I4C L LAC1CO4
name Thursday, January 6, 1910, at 1880
pm. as the time, Inc the hall of the
house of representatives as the place of
meeting of said caucus.
81 recommend that the two houses ad-
journ over till Saturday or Monday and
give the intervening time to the business
Of the caucus.
"H. NJ. STREET,
'Speaker of the House,"
I believe all the candidates were anx-
lous for the caucus and none more SO
than Governor Vardaman. Before the
caucus met he said he was absolutely GER
tain of IS votes on the first ballot and,
if Dunn, of Lauderdale, did not enter
the race, he would be nominated the
first night. Dunn did not enter.
| have never known the Golden Rule
applied in a political caucus or conven-
ton. The majority adopt rules to suit
the majority. I believe the ballot was
adopted as the best means of uniting
the opposition to Vardaman, and not
to take the votes from him, while some
voted for it because it was following
Democratic precedent. Every test vote
showed there was a clear majority
against Vardaman. There was jealousy
and friction between the other candi-
dates, and some of the tactics played
against each other deceived Varda mans
friends. The followers of some of the
candidates created the impression that,
when their favorite was dropped they
would go to Vardaman and elect him.
This may not have been sincere, but it
was politics.
The house was very nearly equally
divided for and against V~ardaman. There
were true and good MEN on both sides.
Some voted for a ballot and some did
not. IF the opponents of Vardaman had
thought a viva voce vote was neces-