The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-10-17
MUCH DISSATISFACTION
OVER COMMITTEES ACT
Members Defend Haddon Nominal ton
by Declaring Wise Filed No No
toe of Candidacy.
CITE PAST PRECEDENTS
Assumption OF Power I'm Past Held to
Make 1t Perfectly Proper For Body
to Continue to Personally Conduct
Richmond Democracy.

lttfl tdNS or, puDllC StHliHieiit 10 SSA'.
strongly stirred up over the acuon OF
the City Democratic Committee on
Monday night
A large number Of citizens interest
ed in public matters have expressed
themselves in emphatic terms against
the summary action OF the commlttes
in nominating a man for the Com
monwealth's attorneyship against the
protests of hundreds of voters.
On the other hand. there are those
who agree with the committee. This
element says:
IF we are to have an organization
and a committee to look out for the
workings OF that organization, elected
by the people, that body should see
that the best interests of the party
are conserved. AS between the two
candidates. one named by Judge Rich
ardson ami one by the City Demo-
cratic Committee. It should appear
that the election of man by twenty
eight representative men would be
more representative of the people
than man selected by one man"
This argument of course, is refuted
by the liberal spirited men, They do
not recognize that the naming OF
man by eithe- the Judge or the COM
nittee should prevail In this particu-
lar instance. They proclaim that the
Office of Commemorative attorney. be-
ing a most important one should be
filled by the full, free and fair vote
of the electorate Of the city. without
prejudice or bias.
Cannon and Fuller Cases.
The fact that the city committee
had upon two recent previous occa-
sions nominated men for public Of
fee, II is commended. should not have
served az presidents in this case.
yJrhtrer fta N n
James r. Cannon for the State Sem
ate and r. Il. Fuller for the House
of Delegates the conditions were dif-
ferent No question was raised at the
action of the committee II either case.
In both cases there were two names
before the committee and the ballot
ing was spirited.
In the case IF Cannon, there were
two nominees before the committee.
Mr.. Cannon and s. L. Kelly. In the
case Of Fuller; he had as a fellow
contestant Joseph G. Taylor. a we'll
known young LAWYER who took lead
tnv part in the Local celf-CSovernmen
Leagues campaign last year, The
vote IN each instance was close.
Facts in Cannon Case.
II is interesting to Know that In the
Cannon case the following facts ex
listed:
Colonel John 6. TIarwood, whose
name was the only one presented the
committee FOR the nomination as q
candidate for the State Senate at the
Democratic primary was declared the
nominee af the party No primary
was called, therefore but before the
general election Colonel Harwood
sfir-l The committee then met to
supply the vacancy on the ticket. A.
that meeting the names IF James r.
Cannon and Samuel T. Kelly were
presented.
Kelly appeared 10 have the prefer
once before the meeting, Init when the
vote was taken he was beaten by Mr..
Cannon. The lattcr's name was placed
on the ballot with no opposition, and
he was elected.
In the case of Fl. r. Fuller: Dele
gate u l. Toney, who had been elect
ed to succeed himself as member OF
the House. died In the summer ~
1914. In October OF that year the
COMMITTEES met 10 select n man To
fill the vacancy. 10 be elected at the
November election. Two names were
placed before the committee-E. r.
Fuller ana JOSEPH c, Taylor.
In this case. RS IN that OF Cannon
and Kelly, the baIioting In the com-
mtttee was spirited Mr.. Fuller won.
and was declared the nominee of the
party, Tie was elected mt the follow
ing November election. and served IN
the special session of the Legislature
last spring.
An interesting point about both
these selections by the committee Is
the fact that Chairman Clyde W
Saunders voted for both Kelly and
TAYLOR. tbs defeated candidates before
the committee
One of the committeeman satd last
night that he elieved that IL Mr.. Wise
had not written the letter that he
did 10 the committee the action OF
the committee might have bean diff
ferent.
But" said this committeeman.
"the letter WAS not a notice Of canai-
dacy by Mr.. Wise to the committee.
Mr.. Haddon's letter was along the
lines of all such communications sent
the committee upon similar occasions.
He filed his application with the COM
mittee, the official body OF the Demo-
cratic party Mr.. Wise did net"
This same committeeman said last
night that he knew OF no proposed
action on the part Of the committee
toward casting out OF the party those
who voted for Mr.. Wise.
1T is up to the committee to act
as body In such q matter" said the
committeeman. Individual mem
bers may, of course, express their In
dividual views. but no member can
express the view of the committee be-
fore action Is taken on any subject"
With these explanations OF commit
teemen, the fact remains that there
Is widespread dissatisfaction with the
.etien OF the committee in making
nomination, and declaring that nomi-
nee the representative of the Demo-
cratic PARTY.
Mr., Wise has been in Common