The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1912-08-01
No.4

attempting to add l31 precinct men 20
the old committee was. OF course, be-
yOnd his power. The resolution au-
thorizing him to fill vacancies, Of
course. applied only TO those places
which became vacant after they had
been filed and clearly did not apply to
13l new precincts. 1t could not in the
0ature OF things apply to a change
from the old system to complete new
system Of Jgrcincts created by the city
council, be.uuse II they were to be
filled the p3gire number Of 331 new
precincts ii icrent from the old must
be filled one system could not be
made int Gp other by a mere addi-
tiOnal - llment of l3l committee
men awyer will say that such
action he committee thus consti-
tuted "@a Therefore tie action
which g. .wfuI committee Of 80 took
In elect =. Taft delegates who made
majority In the state convention was
the only one which could be recognized
as valid
CONTESTED DISTRICT DELE
GATES.
ALABAMA.
Ninth District.
The Ninth Alabama contest turned
on the question whether the chairman
of a 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 reSOlu-
ton under which the right of the
chairman to appoint to 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
affidavits were filed by committeeman
who were present when the resolution
was passed to show that the resOlu-
ton contained no such authority. This
gave rise to a 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 au-
thority therefore to appoint to the
vacancies. and therefore the action of
his committee was not valid. This
made it necessary to reject the contest
Gn ho fyun
other issues of fact before them in
favor of the Taft contention, although
the first decision was conclusive.
ARKANSAS.
Fifth 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
of the convention of 1908 in holding
that what was known as the Redding
faction was not the Republican party.
that it was a defunct organization and
had only acquired life at the end of
each four years for the purpose of
using it in the national convention
ed. 1t was shown that the other or
Taft had been in active existence as
the Republican party, had nominated
a local ticket and had run a congress
man.
CALIFORNIA.
Fourth District.
The Fourth California presented this
question: Under the state law the dele
CATION. two from each district, was
elected on a general ticket, in 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
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 a majority Of 200 more than
the Roosevelt delegates in that dis
trict. 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 each 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 1880. That
has been the party law. This cOnven-
ton recognized the party law and held
it 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 national convention.
| The fact that President Taft by tele-
yram approved all the twenty-six dele
yates as representing him is said to be
IN 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