The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1914-01-23
THE PARTY SPLIT.

greement over the liquor question
but because Of the arbitrary, higl
handed and tyranical course of tn
then state executive committee I'm
der the direction and domination Of M
r. Patterson. In 1908 there was nj
split in the party; only one state or
democrats, majority probably, fol
lowed the lead of Senator Carmacl
and while they voted for Patterson
as the nominee, repudiated the plat
form upon the liqger question anG
elected In November of that year 9
majority of democrats in both houses
who voted for statewide prohibition
The Herald and a majority of the
democrats of this county, supported
Patterson but repudiated his platform
and elected legislative delegation
that voted for prohibition.
The party was not formally divided
In Tennessee until the opening of the
campaign in 1910, year after the
passage of the prohibition bills. The
state committee being absolutely
dominated by and under the control
Of M. R. Patterson, then governor, in
April of that year promulgated a plan
for party nominations that was so
IN ca IVY mi nn1
Subversive of democratic institutions,
that there was Immediately revolt
throughout the borders of the state
This revolt eliminated in the great
Independent democratic convention
at Nashville on May Is.
However, when the independent
convention was called the leaders
Of the revolt were undecided as to
how far the split would extend.
On the night before the independent
convention conference of the
leaders was held at the Maxwell
House. About forty or fifty attended
this meeting. Those present were
far from being of one mind touching
the extent to which they should 60
in the reorganization of the democra-
tic party There were some who
insisted that because of the high
handed and arbitrary and undemo-
cratic course of the state committee
that body should be formally expelled
from office and instead a new demo-
cratic state committee should be
created. But this proposition was
voted down by large majority. |
However, at smaller conference |
held in the rooms of Attorney-Gen.
eral Gates, after the adjournment of |
the main conference, the leaders eff
fected compromise which provided
for the creation of state commit
tee to manage the campaign for the
Independent judiciary and left the
future course OF the democrats parti.
cipating In the convention to be
determined later.
The May convention was in no
sense a prohibition convention al
though doubtless a large majority Of
those present were advocates of the !
prohibition laws. But there were,
among the leaders of that movement,
such anti-prohibition democrats as
Maj. William o. Vertrees, of Nash
vile, Former Congressman Henry C.
of Sparta, Hon. Joe Y.
Williams, of Chattanooga, and the
late r. e. L. Mountcastle, of Knox
VILE In the resolutions of that con-
yention, and it must be borne in
mind that the independent democra-
tic party, as a separate political or
had it's birth in this con-
vention, no reference was made to
the liquor question, on the other
hand, the declaration of principles
set forth as a justification for the
revolution, was an Indictment of
1uO pdl ~ VI thS thNh |
existing state committee
The fight for the Independent judi
ciary was not made upon the issue
of prohibition. 1t was made upon
the proposition of an independent
judiciary, free from all political in
fluences. 1t was also won upon the
of the then existing
party machinery. 1t was after the
split came and the independent judi !
ciary had been elected by 10000 ic
that the liquor question be- l
came one of the issues dividing the t
party. After the judiciary election, C
the state committee created by the I
May convention, met and called a
to meet in September, to I
take action with reference to the
November campaign.
The convention assembled In S
September, endorsed Hooper and de- Is