Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1912-07-30

mittee in attempting to add 131 pre-
cinct men to the old committee was
Of course beyond his power. The reso
luton authorizing him to fill vacancies
of course applied only to those places
which became vacant after they had
been filled. and clearly did not apply
ito 131 new precincts. 1t could not In
the nature of things apply to change
from the old system to complete new
system of precincts created by the city
council because if they were to be
filled, the entire number of 331 new
precincts different from the old must
be filled. One system could not be
made into the other by a mere addi.
tional appointment of 131 committee
men. No lawyer will say that such &C
ton by the committee thus constituted
was legal. Therefore, the action which
the lawful committee of $50 took in
electing Taft delegates who made a
majority in the state convention was
the only one which could be recog-
nized as valid
Contested District Delegates.
Alabama-Ninth District.
The ninth Alabama contest turned
on the question whether the chairman
Of district committee had power to
fill vacancies, whether a committee.
man who had sent his resignation to
take effect only in case he was not
present, being present, should be pre-
vented from acting as committeeman,
and, third, on the identity of another
committeeman. The written resolution
under which the right of the chairman
to appoint vacancies was claimed
showed on it's face that the specific
authority was written in in different
writing and different colored pencil
between the lines A number of aft
davits were filed by committeeman
who were present when the resolution
was passed, to show that the resolu-
tion contained no such authority. This
gave rise to question OF fact upon
which very large majority of both
the national committee and the COM
mittee on credentials held that the
lead pencil insertion was a forgery,
that the chairman did not have the
authority therefore to appoint to the
and therefore the action of
his committee was not valid. This
made it necessary to reject the con-
testants The committee decided the
two other issues of fact before them
In favor of the Taft contention, al
though the first decision was con-
elusive
ADMINISTRATION District.
In the fifth Arkansas. the question
was one of the identity OF one faction
Or the other as the republican party.
This convention followed the example
80 80, h41
that what was known as the Redding
faction was not the republican party,
hat 1t was defunct organization, and
had only acquired life at the end of
each four years for the purpose Of
Using it in the national convention
The contestants were therefore re-
jected It was shown that the other
Or Taft had been in active existence,
as the republican party had nomi-
mated a local ticket and had run a
caIifornia-Fourth District.
The fourth California presented this
question: Under the state law, the
delegation, two from each district. was
elected on general ticket, in a group
Of twenty-six Each delegate might
either express his presidential prefer
ence or agree to vote for the presi
Dental candidate receiving the high
est number in the state In the fourth
district the two candidates from that
district on the aft ticket expressed
D preference for Taft. but did not
agree to vote for the candidates hav-
ing the highest state vote. These Taft
delegates in the fourth district re-
ceived majority of 200 more than the
Roosevelt delegates in that district.
The national call forbade any law or
the acceptance of any law which pre-
vented the election of delegates by dis
tricts. In other words, the call Of the
national convention was at variance
with the state law The state law
sought to enforce the state unit rule,
md required the whole twenty-six
delegates to be voted for all over the
state. assigning two to each district
IN the ticket to abide the statewide
election. while the republican national
has insisted upon the unit
If the district since 1880. That has
,een the party law This convention
the party law and held 1t |
o be more binding than that of
he state law, and allowed the two
delegates who had received in the
ourth district vote larger than
heir two opponents assigned to that
district, to become delegates in the
This was clearly lawful,
or state has no power to limit or
ontrol the basis Of representation of
voluntary national party in ma
ional convention. The fact that Presi-
ent Taft by telegram approved all the
wenty.six delegates as representing |
i'm is said to be an estoppel against
lis claiming the election Of two Of
hose delegates In their fourth district.
What is there inconsistent In his APP |
rowing the candidacy Of all his dele
ates and the election Of two of them ? !
Why should he be thus estopped to |
lain that part of the law was inopera-
I've because in conflict with the call
t the convention?
Indiana, Thirteenth District.
In the 18th Indiana there was no
uestion about the victory of the Taft !
zen, because the temporary chairman
epresenting the Taft side was con-
eded to have been elected by one-half