Ripley County democrat., 1912-02-02
[ConGnued from First Page. ]


trol his preference for Presidential
candidates tive years thereafter.
A Dangerous Precedent
II the candidates at jefferson City.
even though they might have acted
with the utmost freedom. but much
loss since they acted under a kind G,
duress, could by resolution bind
three hundred and fifty thousand
Democrats 10 support any man for
President then equally could they
have bound the whole Democracy to
support any man they might have
selected and endorsed for Vice Presi-
dent nr for Governor. They had Just
as much authority to do the one as
,he other Would not that be dan.
gerons precedent TO set? II that be
established as a rule Of party govern
mcnt in Missouri, then any such con
yeation AS that OF September, 1919.
can bind the party as 10 candidates
in future years. and thus deny to the
great body of the Democratic elec.
torate any voice In the selection OF
their party standardbearers Such a
contention is not only untenable but
intolerable We utterly deny that
any number OF candidates for Office,
high or low, can get together in con.
ventlon, or out Of convention, and in
this arbitrary and unauthorized man.
ner dictate to the Democrats OF the
state. In the past much has been said
In dsparagement Of the manipulatlons
Of politicians and bosses. but II this
precedent is set and this kind OF
thing authorized, then will come the
greatest opportunity hitherto known
for the most 1agrant misuse Of power
by bosses and politicians.
Meeting Exceeded Lawful Authority.
But II Is contended that because
Speaker Clark. then being a candidate
for Congress, and made by the law a
member Of that convention OF candi.
dates, assembled TO formulate state
platform" was present, he Is bound
by the resolution adopted at that
meeting whether the Democrats oil
the state are bound by It or not. The
argument is that though the meeting
may have been without authority to
adopt the resolution, yet as II did
adopt It, and as Clark was present,
that he Is so firmly bound by II that
he could not accept the vote OF the
Missouri delegation without Governor
Folks consent, Let II be remem-
bered that Clark was q nominated
candidate for Congress, and that the
law named him as one of those who
should assemble at jefferson City to
make the state platform for that year
They were not called there TO make
national platform or to deal with
national politics, but TO make a rtate
platform. His presence at that con
vcntlon was merely an Incident aris.
Ing from the provisions OF the law
Now, on the face Of the fact that
many Of those whose judgments were
opposed to the resolution in question
and who did not believe the meeting
had jurisdiction to take cognisance OF
II. but who Stlll for prudential reas-
ons affecting their own candidates.,
advised against voting the resolution
down or openly antagon.Elng It, It Is
oontended that Mr. Clark and his
friend, are ostopped and shut out be-
cause he sat there and looked on In
silence. Even though he had voted
No" II would stlll be eontended that
he was bound II majority had voted
aye" 1t Is but simple justice to
/ MP. Clark to state that he never voted
for the Folk endorsement but pro.
tested to many persons against its
adoption as being both unwlse aud
not within the scope OF the lawful
power OF the convention. He did not
fight II on the floor OF the convention
because many Of the nominee-dele'
gates contended that as the close
friends of Governor Folk wanted It,
It might be better to let them, have
II, the friends of the Governor declar'
ing that II could not bind future con
vention,
clarks Strong Following,
Since that meeting eighteen
months ago. marked changes in poll
tieal conditions have occurred, Since
! thnp for rnnsnna we'll understood Mr.