The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-03-23
THE DELEGATES AUTHORITY.

nv lflitS agrees NIlIl INV t''''Ni'-
cd interview of Senator Gronna in
the twin cities Thursday in which he
stated in substance tina tho North
Dakota delegation would stay ny Sem
4tor LaFollettr through the V
tion. We probably View the matter
from a different standpoint than the
senator did. but The result is tho
same. We do not believe that under
tho law as il exists in this state. that
the delegates have amy authority to
change the mandate OF the people.
TIL" people have commanded these
delegates To vote for Senator L.aI'ol-
lctte. and if the law NEAR anything
Mt all. tho delegates are required to
obey that, command SO long as SEN
ator La Toilette is Il candidate. The
only WAY. as We sec it. shat the dele
gates may lc relicvedA from the re-
sponsibility is for Senator IaFollette
either in person or by an accredited
agent. Ia Withdraw rs II candidate
from the convention.
1t is true that tho layman's opin-
ion on the law is about as unreliable
MS that of the lawyer. but if ordinary
sense is applied 10 the inter-
probation preference statute. the
conclusion indicated before is fairly
clear. IT is true that the law is vague.
uncertain and misty. but what tho leg
stature intended to accomplish is
clear. and the Legislative intent. We
believe is used even by the courts in
determining the meaning of uncertain
statutes.
The bedrock of The law is the prin-
1,~l- &c |, r, ~ III. Il.
termining who their choice for pres
ident is. The entire people can not
participate in the convention and so
must delegate their rights to a limit
ed number. but the law gives the
whole people the powcr to make
these selected few the hearers of the
mandate of all. They are the special
delegates wcer M liberty To vote in
m thing for which they ar" ap-
pointed. They are not general agents
TO cast the states vote in tho con-
vention regardless of the will of the
people. This is clear because the law
makes paramount tho presidential
preferences. or tho granting IF the
specific authority. IL this had not
been tho intention of the legislature.
1t would have provided for tho cleo
WON W l1e ~DtltSitcS ana NOT nave.
that subordinate to tho higher pur-
pose of the law to i.nakc II choice of
presidential candidates.
The legislature was seeking To on
large the power of tho party mnmhcr-
ship in its choice of candidntes-tu
get away from what is popularity cali
cd the rul" of the few. Now. If tn.
delegates We crat liberty to vote in
convention FOR whom they pleased.
the Very purpose of tho law would
he defeated. The method of selecting
tfe delegates would be changed from
the convention system to tho primary.
hut tho power of the people over
those delegates would he just tho same
as before the passage of he law. Evi-
IDENTITY the Legislature intended Ia Civ"
the people power oNer these agents.
mot merely to change the manner of
naming them.
IF this view nf tho law is sound.
with its inhcxiblc direction. tho dele
gates to the national convention have
no authority undcr the law to do 9th
"rwise than AS instructed. The law
docs not provide for any
in which they may use their own
Judgment. nor exercise their own dis
erection. They might, if released from
supporting Senator l.aFollette, be
morally bound to vote for Roosevelt,
because he was the next highest man.
hut they could vote for President
Taft or a candidate not now known
without violating the law. But so
long as Senator I.aFollette is a can-
didate before h convention the law
requires that the delegates vote for
him.
The whole question hinges on tho
law of agency. If one man executes
a power of general agency to another
authorizing such agent to do all things
that tho principal could do. the agent
can use both his judgment and his
But If the principal appoints an agent
for n purpose of doing one thing in
A certain way. the agent ran not use
either his judgment or discretion. Tie
must carry out his instructions spe.
officially. This latter is the power
that the people have given the dele
gates to the national convention. 1t
is specific and limited.
1t will hardly do to answer these
things by charging that such a con-
~structfon of the law leads to absurdi-
ties. The law may not be comprehen-
sive. but that does not destroy it's
validity. The test is whether it can
be carried into execution. The re-
quirement is that the delegates vote
FOR Senator LaFollette and so long
as he is in position to receive that
vote. the law can be carried out, and
such carrying out does not lead to
a~bsurdities.
All this is parchment in a way, and
is intended more to call attention to
the workings of the law than to the
action Of the delegation at Chicago.
The law needs some amendments.
One should provide for second and
possibly their choice. or in lieu of
this. to fix the time or conditions un-
der which the delegates might act
on their own initiative. Another
amendment. though not concerned in
this discussion. should register those
who vote the different party tickets
and the voter should he estopped from
voting any other national ticket in
the November election.
--t--. 1850 - - 80.