The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1912-07-11

Ntf" toNNtNN w tANf Aaht# MI
Fona, California, Texas aud Wash
meson, Which in my judgment wer
sottl4y oi serious consideration h.
eaa u either the question % Fac
o. uf law taat were involved. m,
remaining contests we're either rue
rilc or impcrtlnent Moe of then
aad been started By artificial stimu
Ia'on after the delegates had 6e,t
elected. fer the purpose Of lnflueno
.ag the public opinion ~ othel
states as well an the conyvntloa a.
self.
Before casting any vote on th,
contested seats In Arizona. TeAa,
and " Washington, | took the most
competent advice could get from
lawyvs who had studied the eyi.
deh,v aud the arguments, and who
hau 40 personal or partisan Inter.
est "a the matter, and | was guided
by their judgment
What were tho merits Of IA
contests to which You refer" Dr.
iiutlcr was asked,
The Arizona case seemed per.
,ectly clear" NGs tho reply. rhc
feNas case offered the alternative
of accepting delegation chosen
dnder the auspices OF Cecil Lyon In
accordance with his peculiar systom.
based on federal patronage, or a
delegation chosen by and from the
republicans OF the several congress
sional districts OF Texas. It Is not
as well known In the North as Il
ought TO be that the Texas conyen.
ton consists of delegates from
more than 2b0 counties, In about
100 OF which there is no discerna-
ole republican organization, From
and on behalf OF these 100 counties,
more or less, Mr., Lyon himself
receives and votes proxies. undorI
his leadership the republican vote inI
Texas has decreased from about
10000 to less than 10000. That
his system OF selecting delegates
was farce and fraud on the party
and the public was 10 me perfectly
evident.
THE Washington ease presented
elements of graver doubt than any
other case that was considered
While with more time at my dispos
al, ! might have come 10 n differen
conclusion, felt on reading the
statement OF the two opposing par
ties and on examining the briefs o.
their counsel. that ! should not h,
Justified in voting TO unseat th
Taft delegates.
"Th case OF California was. Ii
my Judgement, the clearest of all,
continued DR.. Butler, although Il |
Is the one about which the greatest
uproar has been raised In the Cal
ifornia case there IL no material
difference upon the facts tn,
question arising there Is purely one
Of law. II Is a rule OF the republi |
can party. finally established after
A long struggle against the parti |
sans OF the unit rule In the conyen-
ion Of 1880, that every congress
si0nal district in the United Statc6
is entitled to It's own seprte re-
presentation In the national conyen-
ton. In 1880 We did not permit
Logan to cast the entire vote for
lllino' for Grant against the pro-
test of number OF individual dis
tricts, although the state conven-
ton Of Illinois had instructed him
to do So Precisely the same ques-
zion arises this year in regard TO
The Situation In California.
III the presidential primary law
passed be II remembered, after
he call for this convention was Is
sued, at the special session of the
.eglsla ure called by Gov. Johnson
had provided for the election Of
ielegates-at-large by general vote
" the republicans OF the state, and
or district electors by general
'ote there would have been no dif-
iculty whatsoever Such law
would have brought the California
procedure within the rule as TO dis
rict representation. But what was
lone was quite different II was
attempted TO submerge the indlyl-
Iual districts and their preferences
lnder a state majority That ma
ority proved to be 1900, and II
arried with II not only the dele
from the state Of
california. but the Roosevelt dele
,ates In every congressional dis
rlct but one In that one district
he Taft delegates received ma
ority Of more than 100 votes, The
ole question submitted 10 the ma
i0nal committee 10 the committee
N credentials and 10 the convon
ion In this case was. are these two
elegates entitled to their seats
espite the provisions OF the Cali :
ornia primary law On that aues
ion | have not an ingtant's doubt. q
3 deprive them Of their seats
'ould mean not only that the repub ,
can national convention ls hereaf. b
ar 20 establish the unit rule. with
II It's shocking unfalrnese, but that /,
In democratic states !,
lall have power 10 dictate how the
spublIcan convention shall be made
,.
ny It's action Ia the California "
lse the convention served notice
lat. where presidential preference .
-imary laws are enacted, they must y
il attempt 10 deprive separate con
districts Of the rights o. al
10 which party pre- b.
dent enflfln themu "