Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1928-07-11
DECISION IN
Continued from page onel

Continued from page one)
and unlawful denial and violation Of
the plaintiffs right"
The plaintiff was called to the
witness stand and Intercepted By
Judge James A. Graham on behalf Of
the defendants, Mr.. Love stating that
while he could not conscientiously
support Governor Smith, he had not
determined whether he would sup
port the republican standard bearer,
and would make no decision in this
respect until Mr.. Hoover had def
nitely announced his stand on prohi-
bition.
No Plans for Future
Il am very much opposed TO Smith,
but have no plans as TO my future
actions" Mr.. Love said.
He was queried as to the steps 10
be taken TO prevent the New York
governor carrying Texas, and asked
10 explain how il 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, il perfected,
would proceed TO aid in the defeat
Of Smith without supporting Hoover.
When the fact was called TO his at
tention that opposition 70 Smith
would also mean opposition TO Joe
Robinson, candidate for vice-presi-
dent, a noted dry, he stated that he
regretted this fact very much; that
he was a sincere supporter Of Robin
son, and hoped hat 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 "a the ID convention.
Relative "a taking the pledge AZ the
precinct convention in Dallas coUn-
ty, the plaintiff asserted hat he had
announced that he would support
the nominees % the extent his con
science would permit.
The plaintiff would not commit
himself as to what his course would
be in regard 70 the national campaign
IN connection with his expressed de-
termination TO 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 Elm
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
- Clvan-a. Gil UL- -
witness devoted half an hour 70
Smiths record, especially in connec-
ton with prohibition and law en-
forcement.
He asserted that New York was
controlled by Tammany, and that the
Tammany 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
didate who was not an advocate OF
prohibition or who aad a record in
favor Of prohibition, Mr.. Love indi-
Gated that he might, providing he
was assured by the candidates rec
ord that he would enforce the law.
The defendants, liz their answer to
the application stated that Mr.. Love
had no right 70 a place on the ballot:
that ne rs not a democrat; he is not
affiliated with the democratic party.
but is affiliated with the enemy OF
the democratic party, and that he is
morally contaminated, and comes into
this court asking for equitable relief
and seeking TO compel these defend
ants TO do that which Is morally
wrong" They further contended that
for the committee 10 place Mr.. Loves
name on the ballot would be Ito per
NIT the plaintiff to take advantage
Of his " wrong or moral fraud. and
would be TO compel the defendants
to become participants with him IN
such fraud.
The defendants answer charged
that Mr.. Love had never appeared be-
fore the state committee and advised
the committee he would not support
the party nominee prior TO the time
the committee certified his name to
tho rOuutv committees