Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1912-08-06

tie Olu COuulllcc was, O1 CUuESet UC'
yond his power. The resolution au.
thorizing him to fill vacancies, OF
course, applied only to those places
which became vacant after they had
be.n filed and clearly did not apply to
131 new precincts. 1t could not In the
nature Of things apply to a change
from the old system to complete new
system Of precincts created by the city
council, because If they were to be
filed the entire number of 331 new
precincts different from the old must
be filed. One system could not be
made into the other by mere addi-
tional appointment Of 131 committee
men. No lawyer will say that such
action by the committee thus consti.
tuted was legal. Therefore the action
which the lawful committee of $50 took
In electing 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-
tion under which the right Of the
chairman to appoint to vacancies was
claimed showed on its face that the
specific authority was written in in
different writing and different colored
pencil between the lines. A number of
affidavits we're 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
ants The committee decided the two
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.
The contestants were therefore reject
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 a group
If twenty-slx. Each delegate might
either express his presidential prefer
,nce or agree to vote for the presiden.
ial 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 |
igree to vote for the candidates hav-
ng the highest state vote. These Taft
delegates In the Fourth district re-
,eived a majority of 200 more than
he Roosevelt delegates In that dis
rict. The national call forbade any
aw or the acceptance Of any law
which prevented the election Of dele
.ates by districts. In other words. the
all of the national convention was at
'ariance with the state law. The state
aw sought to enforce the state unit
ule and required the whole twenty
tx delegates to be voted for all over
he state, assigning two to each dis
rIct on the ticket to abide the state
vide election, while the Republican
ational convention has insisted upon
he unit of the district since 1880. That
as been the party law. This conven-
lon recognized the party law and held
/ to be more binding than that of the
tate law and allowed the two dele
ates who had received In the Fourth
istrict a vote larger than their two
pponents assigned to that district, to
ecome delegates In the convention.
his was clearly lawful, for a state has
o power to limit or control the basis
{ representation Of a voluntary ma
onal party In a national convention
he fact that President Taft by tele-
ram approved all the twenty six dele
ates as representing him Is said to be
n estoppel against his claiming the
lection OF two Of those delegates in
leir Fourth district What Is there
In his approving the can
ldacy Of all his delegates and the
ection Of two Of them1 Why should
e be thus estopped to claim that part
the law was imperative because In
,nfiIct with the call Of the conventioDi
INDIANA.
Thirtesnth District.
In the Thirteenth Indiana there was
D question about the victory Of the