Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1920-05-01
Palmer Forces to BOLt
C0nUenti0n It MOI GtUen
Ill Delegates to Frisco

declare the result IN the unconteSted
counties and refer the contests to the
state convention to be settled there.
This discussion developed the atti-
tude of a majority of the members
of the subcommittee concerning Rule
| 10 as cited above.
Messrs. j. r. Smith and Ben M.
Blackburn urged the subcommittee
to refer the contests to the state
convention. II. H. Parker, a mem
Der of the subcommittee, made mo-
tion to that effect. He said the de-
cision of the subcommittee would be
| appealed to the state convention
| either way the contests were de-
| cided, and hence it was a waste OF
| time for the subcommittee to hear
| the contests.
Judge James J. Flynt, chairman OF
| the subcommittee, and also chair
man of the state committee, support
ed Mr.. Parker. He thought the sub
committee would be. going beyond It's
i province in attempting to decide dis
| putes between rival delegations from
county or counties. He thought
! the subcommittee should declare the
result in the uncontested counties
| and should refer the contests to the
state convention.
Mr. Parker's motion was defeated
| by a vote of four to two. Those
voting against it were Fermor Bar
rett, Toccoa; H. H. Dean, Gaines
Vile; Herman Miner, Eastman; Hi
ram Gardner, Eatonton. Those fav-
oring the motion were Mr.. Parker
and Judge Flynt. The subcommittee
| then decided to hear and decide all
| contests on May II, and formal no.
tice of contests must be filed with
Secretary Gardner by May 6.
Plan of Palmer Forces
In the course of the discussion,
which lasted more than two hours,
and was somewhat freely participant
| ed in by j. r. Smith and Ben M.
| Blackburn, who were permitted to
present their views and argue the
| points with members of the Subcom
mittee, it developed that the Palmer
members Of the subcommittee were
not willing to concede that the state
| convention to be held May IS will
| Rave any authority except the au-
thority specifically delegated to it by
the state executive committee. Judge
Fiynt and Mr.. Parker argued. with
| the support of Messrs. Smith and
| Blackburn, that convention is q
sovereign body; that it's action is
controlled by a majority of it's mem
bers; that it's rules of procedure are
of it's own making and not of the
| making of a committee; that it IS
| the sole judge of the Credentials of
| it's own members.
Messrs. Barrett and Dean contend
ed flatly against this view. They
declared that the presidential prima-
ry is not analogous to state prima-
ry: that the presidential convention
is not analogous to a biennial state
| convention; that the presidential
primary was called into being by the
| state executive committee, and was
scribed by the committee, and will
be concluded in state convention
governed by the same authority.
| Mr.. Barrett denied that there was
any sovereignty in the presidential
convention. The sovereignty, he
contended, rests in the regular BIZ
ennial state convention, and the SOW
ereienty Of that body was delegated
lad interim" to the state executive
| committee, and the presidential
primary was held by order and I'M
der the authority of the state eXecu,
| tive committee.
Conventions Narrow Authority
When the presidential convention
meets in Atlanta on May Is, contend
ed MesSrs. Barrett and Dean, it will
have but one function to perform
and that is to name the delegates to
will be governed by the provisions OF
Rule 10 passed by thu state eXecu-
| tive committee, SO that while non
Palmer delegates will outnumbel
Palmer delegates in the convention
nevertheless the convention must Sc
| 1eCL Ed1II6y ,SuppOl Lei , sto uS1SSdlCS
to San Francisco.
Colonel Dean contended that Rule
10 was made without any idea OF
benefiting Palmer, Smith or Watson
since none of these was a candidate
on February 6, when the rule was
passed; that all three candidates &C
quiesced in the rule when they en-
tered the presidential primary an6
ran under it without a protest OF
objection; that all are therefore
bound by it.
The question Of, contests between
rival delegates from counties, Colo
mel Dean contended, cannot be final
ly settled, in the last analysis, unit
the San Francisco convention is held
That is to say, if the right of the
Palmer delegates to control the con
vention for the purpose of sending
| a Palmer delegation should be dis
puted, and there should grow out OF
the state convention a contest, Their
the San Francisco convention would
| have to settle it and he thought il
would settle it in favor of Mr.. Pal
mer by virtue of Rule 10.
This means, therefore, that if the
Smith and Watson delegates refuse
to abide and be governed by Rule II
in the state convention, two separate
sets of delegates may go from Geor
! gia to the Frisco COnVen ton.