The Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1912-1917, 1912-08-02

attempting to add 131 precinct men to
the old committee was, of course, be-
yond his power. The resolution au-
thorizing him to fill vacancies, Of
course, applied only TO those places
which became vacant after they had
been filed and clearly did not apply to
III new precincts. 1t could not in the
nature OF things apply to change
from the old system to-a complete new
system OF precincts created by the city
council. because If they were to be
hlled the entire number of 331 new
precincts different from the old must
be filed. One system could not be
made into the other by q mere addi-
tional appointment of 131 committee
men. No lawyer will say that such
action by the committee thus consti-
tuted vas legal. Therefore the action
which the lawful committee Of $50 took
In electing Taft delegates who made
majority In the state convention was
the only one which could be recognized
as valid
CONTESTED DISTRICT DELE
GATES.
ALABAMA.
Ninth District.
The Ninth Alabama contest turned
on the question whether the chairman
OF district committee had power to
fill vacancies, whether committee
man who had sent his resignation to
take effect only in case he was cot
present, being present. should he pre-
vented from acting as committeeman.
and. third. on the Identity of another
committeeman. The written reSolu-
ton under which the right OF the
chairman to appoint to vacancies WAS
claimed showed on it's face that the
specific authority was written in in
different writing and different colored
pencil between the lines A Gumher Of
affidavits were filed by committeeman
who were present when the resolution
was passed to show that the rpSolu
ton contained no such authority This
gave rise to a question Of fact upon
which very large majority of both
the national committee and the com
mittee ON credentials held that the
lead pencil insertion was forgery,
that the chairman did not have the an
thority therefore to appoint to the
vacancies, and therefore the action OF
his committee was not valid This
made 1t necessary to reject the contest
ants. The committee decided the two
other issues of fact before them In
favor of the Taft contention. although
the first decision was conclusive.
ARKANSAS.
Fifth District.
In the Fifth Arkansas the question
was one of the identity of one faction
or the other as the Republican party
This convention followed the example
of the convention Of 1908 In holding
that what was known as the Redding
faction was not the Republican party.
that 1t was defunct organiza ton and
had only acquired life at the end of
each four years for the purpose of
using It In the national convention
The contestants were therefore reject,
ed 1t was shown that the other or
Taft had been In active existence as
the Republican party. had nominated
a local ticket and had run congress
man.
CALIFORNIA.
Fourth District.
The Fourth California presented this
fha TO TO 10 + Lot
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
tal candidate receiving the highest
district the two candidates from that
district on the Taft ticket expressed
q preference for Taft. but did not
agree to vote for the candidates hav.
ing the highest state vote These Taft
delegates In the Fourth district re-
the Roosevelt delegates In that dis
trict The national call forbade any
law or the acceptance of any law
which 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
tho state, assigning two to each dis
trict ON the ticket to abide the state
wide election, while the Republican
convention has insisted upon
the unit OF the district since 1880. That
has been the party law This conven-
ton recognized the party law and held
1t to be more binding than that Of the
state law and allowed the two dele
gates who had received In the Fourth
district a vote larger than their two
opponents assigned to that district. to
become delegates In the convention.
This was clearly la wful for a state has
no power to limit or control the basis
Of representation of a voluntary ma
tionai party In a national convention.
The fact that President Taft by tele-
gram approved all the twenty-six dele
gates as representing him Is said to be
IN 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 them7 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