The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-08-01

.to.vote for the presidential candidate
receiving the highest number OF
votes in the state. IN the Fourth
district The two candidates from that
district on the Taft ticket expressed
a preference for Taft, but did not
agree to vote for the candidate hav-
ing the highest state vote. These
Taft delegates in the FouRth dis
trict received a majority d 200 or
more than the Roosevelt delegates In
that district. The national CAR for
bade any law or the acceptance of
any law which prevented the cleo
ton of delegates by districts. In
other words, the call of the national
committee was at variance with the
state law. The state law sought to
enforce the state unit, and required
the whole twenty-six delegates 70
be voted for .all over the state, as
signing two to each district on the
ticket to abide the statewide cleo
,tion, while the Republican national
convention has insisted upon the
unit OF the district since 1880. That
has been the party law. This con-
vention recognized the party law and
held 1T to be more binding than that
of the state law, and allowed the
two delegates who had received. in
the Fourth district vote, larger
than their two opponents assigned
to that district, to become delegates
lin the convention. This was clearly
lawful, for a state has no power to
limit or control the basis OF repre-
sentation of voluntary national
party in national convention, The
/ fact that President Taft by telegram
approved all the twenty-six dele
gates representing him is said to
be an estoppel against his claiming
the election OF two OF those delegates
in the Fourth district. What. is
There inconsistent in his approving
the candidacy OF all his delegates
land 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-Thirteent District.
In the Thirteenth Indiana district
There was no question about the VIC
\ tory of the Taft men, because the
temporary chairman representing
the Taft side was conceded to have
been elected by one-half vote more
than the Roosevelt candidate. The
one-half vote extended throughout the
;, riotous proceedings. and although II
was not as wide as barn door, II
was enough. The chairman put the
question as to electing the Taft del
egates, and after continuous obiec-
ton lasting three hours, declared the
! vote carried. The Roosevelt men
thus prevented roll call and then
I bolted.
4 Kentucky-Seventh District.
In the Seventh Kentucky district,
the total vote of the convention was
1854. There were contests from four
counties involving ninety-five votes.
According to the rules of the party
in Kentucky. where two sets of Gre
dentials were presented. those dele
gates whose credentials are approved
by the county chairman are entitled
to participate in the temporary or
ganlzation. on the temporary roll
the Taft chairman was elected by
ninety-eight votes and forty-seven
votes were cast for the Roosevelt
candidate The committee on Gre
/. dentlals was then appointed, con-
sisting of one member named by
each county delegation. The ma
jority report Of the committee was
adopted unanimously by the con-
vention, no delegation whose seats
were contested being permitted to
vote on its own case. AS soon as
the majority report of the creden-
tials committee had been adopted.
the Roosevelt adherents bolted.
There was not the slightest reason
for sustaining the contest for Roose-
welt delegates. 4
Kentucky-Eigflth District.
I The Eighth Kentucky district was
composed of ten counties having
16S votes, of which eighty-two werS
necessary to choice. There was
no contest in five of the counties,
and although the Roosevelt men
claimed that there was one in spen-
Ger county. no contest was pre-
sented against the seating OF the
regularly elected Taft delegates
from that county, This gave the
Taft 5a1a0atnn ntoktuRa.. .1A.-s