St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1912-07-03

remaining contests were either puer.
lie or impertinent. Most of them had
been started by artificial stimulation
after the delegates had been elected
for the purpose OF influencing the
public opinion in other states, as
well as the convention itself
Before casting my vote on the con-
tested seats in Arizona, Texas and
Washington, took the most compe-
tent advice / could get from lawyers
who had studied the evidence and
arguments, and who had no personal
or partisan interest in the matter,
and I was guided BY their judgment.
The Arizona case seemed perfectly
clear. The Texas case offered the
alternative of accepting a delegation
chosen under the auspices of Cecil
Lyon, in accordance with his pecul-
lar system, based on federal patron
age, or delegation chosen by and
from the Republicans of the several
congressional districts of Texas. It
is not as well known in the North
as it ought to be that the Texas
convention consists of delegates
from more than $50 counties, in
about 1vV of which there is no dis
cernible Republican organization.
From and on behalf of these 100
counties, more or less, Mr.. Lyon him
self receives and votes proxies. I'm
der his leadership the Republican
vote in Texas has decreased from
about 10000 to less than 10000.
That his system of selecting dele
gates was a farce and a fraud on
the party and the public was to me
perfectly evident.
The Washington case presented ell
ements of graver doubt than any
other case that was considered. While
with more time at my disposal, I
might have come to different con-
clusion, felt on reading the state
ment of the two opposing parties
and on examining the briefs of their
counsel, that l should not be justi-
fed in voting to unseat the Taft
delegates.
The case Of California was, in my
Judgment, the clearest of all, AL
though it is the one about which
the greatest uproar has been raised.
In the California case there is no
material difference upon the facts.
The question arising there is purely
one of law 1t is a rule of the Re
publican party, finally established
after a long struggle against the par
tisans of the unit rule in the con-
vention of 1880, that every congress
sional district in the United States is
entitled to its own separate repre-
sentation in the national convention.
In 1860 we did not permit Logan
to cast the entire vote of Illinois
for Grant against the protest of a
number of individual districts, al
though the state convention of IL
linois had instructed him to do so.
Precisely the same question arises
this year in regard to California.
If the presidential primary law
passed, be it remembered after the
call for this convention was issued,
at the special session of the Legis-
Iature called by Gov. Johnson-had
provided for the election of dele
gates-at-large by general vote of
the Republicans of the state, and for
district electors in each district, there
would have been no difficulty what
soeveer. Such a law would have
brought the California procedure
within the rule as to district repre-
sentatfon. But what was done was
quite different 1t was attempted
to submerge the individual districts
and their preferences under a state
majority. That majority proved to
be 1900, and it carried with it not
only the elegates-at-large from the
state of California, but the Roose-
welt delegates in every congressional
district but one. In that one district
the Taft delegates received ma
jority of more than 100 votes. The
sole question submitted to the ma
tional committee to the committee
on credentials and to the convention
in this case was, are these two dele
gates entitled to their seats, de-
spite the provisions of the California
primary law? On that question 1
have not an instant's doubt. To de-
prive them of their seats would mean
not only that the Republican nation
al convention is hereafter to estab-
lish the unit rule, with all its shock
ing unfairness, but that Legislatures
in Democratic states shall have pow
er to dictate how the Republican con-
vention shall be made up.
BY it's action in the California case
the convention served notice that,
where presidential preference pri-
mary laws are enacted, they must
not attempt to deprive separate con-
gressional districts of the right OF
to which party law
and party precedent entities them.