Douglas daily dispatch., 1926-07-23
CLARK REPLIES
TO MADDOCK'S
CHALLENGE

PHOENIX, July 22.-Declaring tha
iti not within the province of the
state committee to nominate candi-
dates for public office and that sucf
procedure would be subversive OF
the primary law, e. S. Clark issuec
reply to challenge" made by
Tom Maddox and announced that the
republican candidate for governor vii
be selected at the polls.
In his letter addressed to E. S
Clark, Maddox suggested that ;
meeting of the republican state com
urday, July 81, at which time eacf
candidate for the republican guberna
torial nomination be given one houl
in which to present to the committed
reasons why he should be the party
candidate.
| Maddock's letter specified that com
mitteemen votei Individually not sub
ject to the unit rule and that nc
proxies be recognized. The choice o
the committeeman would be the stat
standard bearer according to Mad
docks suggestion, the loser to exer
his best efforts for the success of tht
ticket
In his letter, Maddox declared tina
he has at all times supported the re-
publican candidates and he takes is
sue with Clark in his statement 0.
policies issued a few days ago.
Clark's reply to the challenge is
sued by Maddox states that he il
Obliged to remain in the race to the
end, and regardless of the result o.
the primary, 1 shall support every
nominee on the republican ticket.
The method of arriving at choice
by vote of the committeeman is no
satisfactory even though no othe
objectionsw ere raised, Clark says, il
that the Maricopa county delegation
would undoubtedly have its entire
voting strength present, while the res
of the state would not feel disposed
to make the trip to Phoenix to choos'
between two gubernatorial candidates
| Clark's reply to the challenge is
sued by Maddox follows:
| CIarI1's Reply
II have your letter of the 18th inst
unite with you in requesting the stat
| chairman to call a meeting of tn,
republican state committee for Sat
urday, July 81, at 2 p. M, at the cap
ital city of our state, wnere we boil
lreside, with the understanding thai
we both be allowed one hour in orde
to present to the committee the reas
ons why we are entitled to the nomi.
nation. That withous further argu
ment the committee then vote indi
vidually, not being subject to the uni
rule or by recognizing proxies, anC
that whoever receives the majority O.
the votes be the candidate of oul
party, the other agreeing to Withdraw
from the race You say that 1 may
have the choice of presenting my can.
didacy either first or last, no rebutta
being permitted. I am to be giver
"A hours to agree to this proposal.
Replying, permit me to say thai
L appreciate the friendly tone of your
letter. However, your challenge is
not acceptable, and 1 am obliged tc
decline it, for amny reasons, some Of
which follow.
81. 1t is not the province of the
state committee to nominate candl.
dates, therefore your challenge is sub
versive of our primary law and woulC
be rightly resented by the republican
voters of the state, to whom, as {
/ body, the right of choosing party
nominees is legally committed. Thi!
was forcefully illustrated in the dem
ocratic conference at Tucson in 1922
when the endorsement of that organi
zation was given to a certain candi-
date. In the face of this selection an.
other candidate entered the primary
and was nominated, largely upon the
ground that an attempt had beer
made to forestall the verdict of the
rank and file of the democracy. L am
reliably informed that at a recent
meeting of our own state committee
la proposal was made tn endorse g
candidate for governor. This, I am
told, was successfully opposed, and
rightly, as I believe, by A j. Baum
ert, Whoi S said to be one of your po-
'litical advisors, who gave in substance
the same reason I am now stating. 1t
is true that the move then proposed
was an expedient to obtain a candidate
and your challenge involves a method
of eliminating one, but the principle
is precisely the same in either case.
If there is to be any elimination, the
primary has been instituted for that
very purpose. OF course, a candidate
can lawfully and properly eliminate
himself by withdrawal, and in no
other way can the electorate be fairly
and legally deprived of the right of
adjudging the merits of opposing can
didates at primary.
Method Unsatisfactory
"2. But even if your challenge
were not otherwise Objectionable, it
is clear that under it the entire COM
mitteei not to have an opportunity
of expressing itself, for you would
exclude proxies. Unedr the most fa-
vorable conditions it would be i'm
possible to bring the entire member