Evening star., 1952-07-05


mat and Totnan-who came here
Delegates
Continued From First Page.)
compromise, labored yesterday te
have the contestants agree, with
out further hearing. He also laio
before the committee a letter from
former President Herbert Hoover
suggesting that for the good of the
party something should be done tc
adjust the differences over the
Texas delegates instead of going
ahead with the hearings on the
Texas case as planned.
Mr.. Gabrielson asked the two
sides to see If they could moi
agree on the Taft proposal. He
gave them until pm. When thu
committee again took up thu
Texas case soon after that hour
Mr.. Weeks replied for the Eisen-
hover group. He called the Taft
compromise a cynical disregard
of the rights eof the Republican
voters of Texas. He characterized
the offer as "studiously decep-
tive" and said that was no legal
or equitable basis for a compro-
mise of the Texas contest.
Mr.. Weeks charged that Taf1
was fearful that the American
people would not stand for 8
steamroller decision in the Texa.
case. such as had been given by
the national committee in thu
Georgia and Louisiana contests
both decided in favor of Taft.
The committee then proceeded
to hear the arguments of the con.
testants. The case for the Eisen.
hover delegates was presented by
Alvin H. Lane, an attorney from
Dallas; Lamar Cecil of Beaumont
and a long series of Texas wit
nessesA including Joe Ingraham o1
Houston, count y Republican
chairman, who had been a Taft
supporter but who declined to- &c
along with the action of the Taft
forces in Texas, headed by Repub-
lican National Committeeman
Henry ZweifeL
Washington Attorney Appears.
Appearing for the Taft delegates
were three attorneys-Monte Ap-
pei of Washington, a special as
sistant to the Attorney General in
the Hoover administration; F.
Trowbrige Vombaur of Chicago
and former Federal Judge Charles
I. Dawson Of Louisville, KY.
The arguments of the pro-
Eisenhower delegates, headed by
Jack Porter, Republican Sena-
torial candidate in 1948, dealt
with election of delegates in the
precinct conventions, in the coun-
ty conventions. and finally with
the State convention, which was
held in Mineral Wells. Tex. Coun-
sci and witness brought out the
fact that in many of the precinct
conventions. the Eisenhower vot-
ers far outnumbered those fol-
Taft, and that in many of these
meetings, a small minority, even
of the Taft supporters, bolted
held meetings of their own, and
elected delegates to county con-
ventionS.
Mr.. Lane charged that, under
the direction of Mr.. Zweifel, a plot
was Matched for bolting these con-
ventions, with the full understand
ing that the boilers would be up
held by the Republican State Ex-
ecutive Committee, which was
controlled by Mr.. zweifel and 9TH
er Taft supporters. The plot, Mr.
Lane said, was carried out. He
replied to charges made by the
zweifel-Taft people that Demo-
Gratis were brought into the pre-
cinct and county conventions to
control them, pointing out tina
many Of the voters who supported
Eisenhower had been Republicans
for years. He called attention to
the fact, too. that many voters in
Texas-where there is no party
registration-vote in Democratic
primaries for local and State off,
GERS. although the vote in national
elections for the Republican ticket.
Using of State Group Charged.
Mr.. Lane told the committee
that the Zweifel-Tart forces used
The State Executive Committee to
reject more than 500 of the pro-
Eisenhower delegates elected TO
the State convention, and to seat
the pro-Taft delegates, elected by
the boilers, in their places. Fur
thermore, he said, these contested
Taft delegates were permitted to
vote in the State convention. Had
this not been done, he said, the
State convention would have
been cons-olled by the Eisenhower
delegates.
The attorneys for the Zweifel-
Taft delegates, on the other hand,
maintained that the Texas law
governing political conventions
gave the State Executive Commit
tees the right to pass on all dele
gate contests. They insisted that
the State Executive Committee