Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1912-07-27
PEOPLES PULPIT
The Courier will publish In this
column artieles contributed b.
It, reas'srs. The communications
should bs typewr itten or In
plain hand, on one side of the
paper, and signed.

lup, IN which ne gave MS views OF the
contest over two delegates from San
Francisco congressional district to the
republican national convention. Mr.
Orelup does not deny that a national
convention is purely voluntary or
ganization. But he construes this to
mean an organization "self.appointed
and accountable to mo one" He
writes, in effect, that if the legislature
Of state cannot pass law binding
| upon national convention, then 1t
follows that the national convention
being greater than any state is greater
than all the states combined"
The law of California, on which the
contest turned, provided that all the
delegates from that state should be
elected by the voters of the state at
large In 1880 the republican national
convention, made up Of delegates from
every state in the union adopted a rule
that the republicans Of each congress
sional district should have the right to
be represented in a republican nation
al convention w delegates chosen by
thu republicans of that particular dis
trict and that the voters of state
|outside that district should not have
the right or power to impose their
will upon the republican voters within
such district. That rule Of 1880 being
still in force, the national committee,
when 1t issued the call for the ma
tional convention at Chicago this year
would have been without authority to
change the rule.
If the legislature Of California could
pass a law setting aside the rule
adopted by the republican national con-
vention of 1880 as to district repre-
sentation, then the legislature OF
California could pass any other law
1t pleased to regulate the conduct OF a
national convention Of any party. An
illustration will show the result of
admitting such a right. The legisla-
ture of California could pass law that
members of the democratic party
might be selected as delegates to a
republican national convention. II
democrats were selected as delegates
to republican national convention, un-
der such law, passed by sovereign
state, would any fair-minded man con-
tend that the delegates from other
states than California would be bound
by the law Of California, and forced to
permit members of the democratic
party to participate in their delibera-
lions as q republican national cOnven-
ton?
But If the law Of California for the
selection Of delegates from the state
at large in opposition to the rule Of the
party as established by the delegates
to the republican national convention
of 1880, and as ever since In force, was
binding upon the Chicago convention
Of this year of 1912; then law OF
California requiring republican ma
tional convention to admit members
of the democratic party as, delegates
would be equally binding. and the re-
publican national convention could not |
question the law.
Another illustration-1owa Is just as
as California. Suppose Iowa
should pass a law that no delegate
from any state to national conven-
ton should be elected by the voters
of the state at large. II the California |
law is binding upon national con-
vention, then such an Iowa law would
be equally binding, and under the sup
posed Iowa law the state Of California;
would not have the right to select dele.
gates in the manner it attempted to
adopt this year.
1t may be said that the case just
is different from the actual
because California sought
only to prescribe the qualifications It
It's own delegates. But when Cali
fornia attempts to do this, its law at.
fects the people of every other state,
for the delegates from California join !
with the delegates from every other
state in deciding all questions that
come before national convention. No |
principle Of law Is more generally nd
mitted than that the laws of one state |
cannot operate beyond the boundaries |
of that state.
Still another illustration = The |
voters of one San Francisco district |
cast majority of ballots for Taft dele
gates. But the right Of the voters Of
that district to choose delegates for |
was nullified by the state
law which provided that voters out
side that district determine what dele |
gates should go from that district to
the Chicago convention.
The case would be the same in Iowa |
that it was in California. II the Cali |
fornia law had been in force in Iowa,
then the voters of the fourth congress