The Progressive West Virginian. [volume] (Williamson, W. Va.) 1911-1913, 1912-09-19
SAYS AS SENATOR HE SERVED
THE SPECIAL INTERESTS
RATHER THAN THE
PEOPLE.
COLLEAGUE OF CANDIDATE FOR
GOVERNOR SAYS HE is NOT
PROGRESSIVE.
OPPOSITION OF SENATOR GRIMES
TO HEAD OF TICKET Is MAT
TER OF PRINCIPLE.

Hon. w, G. Grimes, Of Marshall
county, is a state senator from the
Second district He is Republican
and was recognized as one Of the
forceful men upon the Republican
side Of that body. He has served
with Dr. Hatfield for four years IN
the Senate. He knows what manner
of man the doctor proved himself
while servant Of the people. In an
article published in the Charleston
Mail and in other Republican news
papers over the state Senator Grimes
wrote:
! have been asked why can not
support the candidacy of DR.. H. d.
Hatfield, one of the fifteen Republic
can senators at the last session OF the
legislature and with whom served.
/ shall give very briefly few Of my
reasons, and want it thoroughly I'M
derstood that it is not because Of any
personal feeling that exists on my
part. We differed on public qIes-
tions. That is my reason for oppos-
ing him. / feel that / would not be
true to myself and the people Of this
state if / were to remain silent on
the many things of which / can
speak with authority.
Opposed to Primary Law.
DIR. Hatfield always and persistent
ly opposed direct primary election
law. In 1909 he introduced in the
legislature of this state a kind of
primary bill favored by the bosses
and machine leaders of the state.
This bill provided for the election of
delegates to a state convention from
the magisterial districts. 1t also pro-
vided If any persons were challenged
at the polls, and there was nothing
to prevent any person from being
challenged he must take an oath to
vote the straight Republican ticket;
the voters name was written on the
back Of the ballot, and after the gem
eral election the ballot on which the
name had been written could be ex-
amined and if the voter had not vot-
led the straight ticket, then he was
guilty of perjury
l can conceive Of nothing that
would so destroy independence IN
voting, give the bosses more power
and SO degrade the ballot. The bosses
under such law could challenge any
voter, and they would do it il ne
dared exercise any independen and
thus have him sworn to support them
in the general election, The Offering
of such bill was an insult to the
manhood of the voters Of West Viz
ginia
Or. Hatfield In the Senate.
In the session of 1912 Senator
French and myself both introduces
primary bills in the senate. Both
these bills were referred to the com
mittee on judiciary. Senator French
and myself were both members %
| this committee and were appointed
as a subcommittee to agree on q
/ bill. This we did, and the bill we
agreed upon was reported back 70
the committee and recommended Dy
| the committee as whole back 70
the Senate with the recommendar
ton that it do pass. In the mean
! time the House passed House nail
! No 80, a bill very similar TO the
senate bill which had been recon-
mended favorably by the committee
on judiciary. Senator Smith, or
Roane county, one day moved to take
M the bill out of its order, which mo
tion preyailed. /, myself, then made
"a motion to dispense with reference
IL a committee, as a commlttee oL
the senate had already considered
!, similar bill. DR.. Hatfield, who was
l nrasident Of the senate, opposed the
hill and arbitrarily refused to puL
the motion, saying it was an impor-
tant hill and should go to c0mmit-
lee. and referred it to the commtttee
IN privileges and elections. This was
! nof the proper committee to which ~
refer it, but it should have gone 70
lthe judiciary committee, the same
| committee that had considered the
1.-TWO senate bills.
Refused to Call COMMITTEES.
| DIR. Hatfield, however. knew TINS
COMMITTEES favored a primary law.
land therefore he didn't want AZ TO acL
mon this matter; and he also knew
the chairman Of the committee ON
privileges and elections was a close
] friend Of his and also opposed 70 a
lnroper primary, and could easily pre-
went action on the bill by refusing "
call the committee on electlons uo-
gether. This was done, alunough e
number of the committee tried "
Illaye q meeting. The bill was killed
lin committee.
DR.. Hatfield also thought the PEG
Die incapable Of deciding the LIQUOR
Question for themselves, and to Keep
4 them from doing it twice voted
against submitting the prohipitioll
4 amendment. He also wrongfuliy ana
unfairly used his power as president
of the senate to help the liquor peg,
pIe at Point Pleasant defeat q local
Temperance measure.
haven't time to go into more de.
ltails. but will say that DIR. Hatfleld
Twas generally with the special n
Iferests as against the people II tne
lpeople want governor who favors
these things have not word 70 say,
hut believe that they are entitled y
Il -