Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1928-07-11
DECISION IN
CONTINUED from page one)
iitely announced his stand on prohi-

A0NAANAAAta AA0AAA page OAAGl
nitely announced his stand on prohi-
bition.
No Plans for Future
| Il am very mach opposed TO Smith,
but have no plans as to my future
actions" Mr.. Love said.
He was queried as TO the steps to
be taken to prevent the New York
governor carrying Texas, and asked
to explain how it would be possible
to do this and still affiliate with the
democratic party. Relative to the
proposed meeting Of anti-Smith dem
ocrats at Dallas, called for the last
Of the week, Mr.. Love stated he did
not know what plans would be made
or how the organization, if perfected.
would proceed 70 aid in the defeat
Of Smith without supporting Hoover.
When the fact was called to his at
t~ention that opposition TO Smith
would also mean opposition 10 Joe
Robinson, candidate for vice-presi-
dent, a noted dry. ne stated that he
/ regretted this fact very much; that
he was a sincere supporter Of Robin
son, and hoped that some plan could
be evolved whereby he could support
Robinson and oppose Smith. This
could not be done, he admitted, by
voting for the democratic electors
named nj the eaumont convention.
Relative to taking the pledge at the
precinct convention in Dallas coun-
ty, the plaintiff asserted that he had
announced that he would support
the nominees to the extent his con-
science would permit.
The plaintiff would not commit
himself as to what his course would
be in regard TO the national campaign
in connection with his expressed de-
termination 70 use his influence TO
defeat Smith in Texas. He declared
he had been a loyal democrat over
forty years; that he had scratched"
the ticket only once, voting for
George Butte for governor in 1924,
and that he could see nothing "im-
moral or illegal" in a candidate on
the state ticket opposing the head Of
the national ticket.
Gives Smiths Record
Judge Samuel Spears Of San Benito.
attorney for the plaintiff, questioned
him as to his reasons for opposition
TO Governor Smith. Whereupon the
witness devoted half an hour to
Smiths record, especially in mi
ton with prohibition and law en-
forcement.
He asserted that. New York was
controlled by Tammany, and that the
Iammany influence was apparent in
most Of the acts OF the governor.
To the query Of defense counsel as
to whether he would support a can
dldate who was not an advocate of
prohibition or who had a record in
favor Of prohibition, Mr.. Love indi-
Gated that he migat, providing he
was assured by the candidates rec
ord that he would enforce the law.
The defendants, in their answer to
the application stated that Mr.. Love
had no right to a place on the ballot:
that he lis not a democrat; he is not
affiliated with the democratic marty
but is affiliated with the enemy Of
the democratic party, and that he Il
morally contaminated, and comes into
tins court asking for equitable relief
and seeking to compel these defend
ants 70 do that which is morally
wrong" They further contended that
Tor the committee TO place Mr.. Loves
name on the ballot would be "to per
NIT the plaintiff to take advantage
Of ms own wrong or moral fraud. ana
would be to compel the defendants
to become participants with him in
such fraud.
The defendants answer chargad
that Mr.. Love had never appeared be-
fore the state committee and advised
the committee he would not surport
the party nominee prior to the time
me committee certified his name N
the county committees.