The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1914-05-27

vcntion was the course OF the gubcr-
Material candidates who were in the
convention as dclcgatcs-Ma Manning,
Browning and Cooper. Each came to
the convention at the head OF the del
cgation from his county instructed to
oppose any measure that would OK
cludc any white man from voting in
the primary, and as far as declared or
known, each was in personal accord
with that view and stood to the end
as against the safeguards which were
! finally adopted.
The committee on constitution had
agreed upon Il plan which would not
exclude any white man, but was in
tended TO make sure Of excluding all
! fictitious names and names of non
ties. 1t had rejected the Richland
plan for the requirement of the reg
istration certificates anu the tax re-
ccirt. 1t had likewise rejected the
Christensen proposal for Identification
of the voter at the polls by requiring
| his presentation OF a card or certificate
numbered to correspond with his num-
Der on the club roll, signed by the sec
retary, and issued to the voter at the
time Of his enrolment.
The Recommendations.
The sole protection recommended
by the committee was that new club
rolls should be made and each dem
ocrat should go in person and sign
his name on the new club book, or
make his mark to be witnessed by
the secretary, and also that the
voter must have resided in the state
two years before the general election,
III the county one year (amendcd to
six months by the cOnventiom before
the general election, and in the
township 60 days before the first pri-
mary, and that the club enrolment
primary, and the rolls be sent up to
the county executive committee for
corrections and additions, upon notice
to all parties that might be affected.
!
filed with the clerk of court as a
public record.
Appelt Led Opposition.
The opposition OF the administra-
tion members of the committee. led
| by Senator Appclt, of Clarendon, and
of the members from Sumter ana Lau-
rens, had been directed against the
residence requirement and against the
provision for personal signature of the
club roll. The minority report car
ried to the floor of the convention the
fight against these two features of the
changes recOmmended-the really sub
stantial safeguards of the ballot. This
report was presented by John II. Cliff
ton, of Sumter who led the fight. 1T
was signed by three or four other
members Of the committee.
r. A. Cooper spoke in favor of the
minority report, which he had signed
as member Of the committee on con
stitution. An extended argument was
made by John Fl. Clifton, who was
answered by a strong speech by l.. ID.
Jennings, representing a part of the
Sumter delegation.
r. |. Manning. the Sumter leader,
spoke near the close Of the protracted
debate. TO the surprise OF many, he
declared himself rs being personally
in favor of the minority report, say
ing that he opposed the residence re-
quiremcnt and opposed the personal
signature OF the club roll Never
theless, lie said, he wanted some sort
OF primary reform and would vote with
the majority. 1t was afterwards re-
marked by many that he did not vote
at all-or at least, some one of his del
egation was unaccounted for, and the
majority from Sumter voted in favor
OF the minority report and against the
proposed reform of the primary.
How They Voted.
On the vote to table the minority re-
port, Laurens cast eight nays; Union
two ayes and four nays, and Sumter
three ayes and four nays Oeaving one
not voting) 1t was not ascertained
whether Lowndes J. Browning voted
with the ayes or with the nays from
Union, or whether r. I. Manning was
the one who failed to vote from sum
ter, or whether. If he voted he was
counted with the Sumter minority for
primary reform or with the Sumter
to,