The Pioche record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1908-1925, 1912-08-31

using II IN the ne u0nal convention.
The contestants wee therefore reject
ed. 1t was shown that the other or
Taft had been in active existence as
the Republican party, had nominated
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
Of twenty six Each delegate might
either express his presidential prefer
ence or agree to vote for the presiden
tai 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 nut
agree to vote for the candidates hav
ing the highest state vote These Taft
Delegates in the Fourth district re
ceieed a majority Of 200 more than
the Roosevelt delegates in that dis
biltI lt ia li'l!di -Ntll lbl Dult any
law or the acceptance OF any law
hich 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 1850 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 vote larger than their two
opponents assigned to that district, to
become delegates In the convention
This was clearly lawful. for state has
40 power to limit or control the basis
IF representation of voluntary ma
tiona party in national convention
The fact that President Taft by tele
gram approved all the twenty-six dele.
gates as representing him Is said to he
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 a vote more than the Roosevelt
randidate This one-haf vote extended
through the riotou5 proceedings, and
although it 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
tom lasting three hours declared the
rote carried. The Roosevelt men thus
PREVENTED roll call and then bolled.
KENTUCKY.
SSVerth District
In the Seventh Kentucky district ths
total vote of the convention was Ne
There were contests from four cuun
ties. involving uinety.iye votes Az
curding to thr rules OF the party If
kentucky, where two seats of credeu
tinIs are presented those delegate
hose credentials are approved ~ the
county chairman are entitled - par
ticipate In the temporary organization.
On the temporary roll the Taft CHAIR
man was elected by nnety-eight Yoles
RAd forty seven votes We're cVN Wv the
Roosevelt candidate The &C Nlmittce
IN credentials was then appointed, con
Eistine Of one member named by each
rounty delegation. The majority re-
port OF the committee was adopted
unanimously by the convention. no del
sgatlOn whose sents were contested
being permitted TO vote on lis own
case. As soon as the majority report
OF the credentials committee had been
adopted, the Roosevelt adherents bolt.
ed. There was not the slightest reason
for sustaining the contest for Roosevelt
delegates
Eighth District
T The Eighth Kentucky district wa.
composed of ten counties having lG3
'oteS, of which cighty.two were neces
saIy TO choice. There was no con
test In five OF the counties. aud al
enough the Roosevelt men claimed that
there was one In Spencer county no
contest was presented against the
seating Of the regularly elected Taft
delegates frotn that county. This CAV.
the Taft delegates eighty four votes, or
two more than We're necessary for
rhoice. In other words. assuming that
the Roosevelt mel were entitled to all
/ tl" delegates from the counties Ia
which they dled contests In the dis
tlct convention there remained cRar
majority OF uuc on eSted delegates who
voted for the Taft delegates to Chi