Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1912-08-08
CALIFORNIA;.
Fourth District.

OtSITtCI.
The Fourth California presented this
question: Under the state law the dele
CATION, two from each district, was
elected on a general ticket, in a group
Of twenty-six. Each delegate might
either express his presidential prefer
ence or agree to vote for the presiden-
tial candidate receiving the highest
number in the state. In the Fourth
district the two candidates from that
district on the Taft ticket expressed
a 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 dis
dict The national call forbade any
law or the acceptance of any law
which prevented the election of dele
gates by districts. 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 and required the whole twenty
six delegates to be voted for all over
the state, assigning two to eacbE dis
trict on the ticket to abide the state
wide election, while the Republican
national convention has insisted upon
the unit OF the district since $780, That
has been the party law. This conven-
ton recognized the party law and held
II to be more binding than that of the
state law and allowed the two dele
gates who had received in the Fourth
district a vote larger than their two
opponents assigned to that district, to
become delegates in the convention
This was clearly lawful, for state has
no power to limit or control the basis
of representation of a voluntary ma
tiOnal party in a national convention
The fact that President Taft by tele-
gram approved all the twenty-six dele
gates as representing him is said to be
an estoppel against his claiming the
election Of two of those delegates in
their Fourth district What is there
inconsistent in his approving the can
didacy Of all his delegates and the
election of two of them? Why should
he be thus estopped to claim that part
of the law was imperative because in
conflict with the call of the convention? {?
INDIANA
Thirteenth District.
In the Thirteenth Indiana there was
no question about the victory OF the
Taft men, because the temporary chair
man representing the Taft side was
conceded to have been elected by one
half vote more than the Roosevelt
candidate. This one-half vote extended
through the riotous proceedings, and
although 1t was not as wide as a barn
door it was enough. The chairman put
the question as to electing the Taft
delegates, and after continuous objec-
tion lasting three hours declared the
vote carried. The Roosevelt men thus
prevented a roll call and then bolted.
KENTUCKY.
Seventh District.
In the Seventh Kentucky district the
total vote of the convention was 145
There were contests from four coun
ties, Involving ninety-five votes. Ac
cordi g to the rules of the party IL
Kentucky, where two seats of creden
ials are presented those delegate:
whose credentials are approved by the
county chairman are entitled to par
ticipate in the temporary organization
On the temporary roll the Taft chair
man was elected by ninety-eight vote
and forty-seven votes were cast for tn,