Crittenden record-press. [volume] (Marion, Ky.) 1909-191?, 1914-12-24

from Hopkins do not endorse TINS
spirit but rather claim that Hop
kins should control, as appears
from the above article from
which we quote:
And the chances Of either
winning in the district as a whole
would have been lessened." "
What Were they afraid to
submit their chances to the vot-
ers Of the whole district? Why
have not voters of Livingston,
Caldwell and Crittenden as much
right as those of Hopkins to de-
eide this matter? Because the
chances Of either winning in the
district as a whole would have
been lessened."
If they were the better qualih-
! ed and the best material for
Judge why should their chances
be lessened by leaving it to the
voters of the whole district to
decide? Are not the democrats
! of Caldwell, Livingston and Crit
tenden just as competent as those
of Hopkins to select the best
man? We think they are. We
are glad TO notice that this feel
ing that Hopkins should rule is
confined to Mr.. Gibson and his
friends, and that the Democrats
generally of that county do not
endorse il. Mr.. Cox in his letter
of withdrawal says that he
Visited all the counties of the
district and was assured of the
friendship and support of many
valued and esteemed friends, and
was persuaded that my nomina-
ton was reasonably sure; but
having entered into negotiations
with one ofmy opponents to sub
INIT our claims TO the voters OF
Hopkins County to determine the
choice of said county and finding
after making said agreement
that there was serious objection
by the voters to such an under
; taking"
) Objection by the voters We
: stated in our former editorial re
| garding the Gibson-Cox primar!
that we did not believe the Dem
ocratic voters of that count!
= would endorse such a spirit ant
2 we are glad to note that they d,
I not endorse il. We have alway
4 believed in the fairness and Just
r ness of the democrats of Hopkin
e County and are glad to see fron
, their condemnation of the pri
$ mary plans, proposed by Nh
y Gibson. that our faith in ther
d was not misplaced.
e As further evidence that thi
= spirit that Hopkins should rule
not shared by the Democrats
Hopkins County generally but
confined to Mr.. Gibson and h
friends, We are glad to see thi
.e although there are two candida
;, es from that county seeking ii
u nomination for Commonwealth
l. Attorney Messrs. Ruby LatfoC
u and Ed Young, neither of the.
" gentlemen is afraid to subm
> his claims to the democrats
III the whole district. Neither
l. them has asked for an elimin
CT ton primary in Hopkins and
Il Democrat of Hopkins has in
rs mated in any way that one
eS the other candidate for Commo
C. wealths Attorney should be wit
" drawn so rs to strengthen {
en- chances of Hopkins County
.'u candidate for that office.
o. Is this because the democr;
laI of Hopkins think any less of +
,e- by Laffoon or Ed Young tn
IT. they do of Mr.. Gibson? No, /
.e' il is evidence that the idea, II
ne Hopkins County should rule
''u district because of its grea
fm strength, was conceived by \
he Gibson and his friends alone a
III, is condemned by the democr
''u generally.
IA We believe the democrats
ne the district will say to Mr.. G
MS son, in the primary, that they