Evening star., 1953-10-27
By Alex R. Preston

AAASJ NSNoGCA N4A. A1L11O1lQ D Iu1-
lngS on party loyalty. It wa.
the only scheduled joint appear.
ance by Statewide candidate.
during the campaign.
Question by Groom.
The attorney general gave hi.
opinion in response to a ques-
tion from Robert L. Groom. for
mer chairman of the Arlington
Republican Committee.
Mr.. Groom wanted to know
the position of supporters Of
State Senator Charles r. Fen
wick, who was defeated by
Thomas B. Stanley in this years
Democratic gubernatorial pri-
mary.
For those up here who like
the progressive ideas of Charley
Fenwick, do they have to vote
for that man Stanley?" was the
way Mr.. Groom asked his ques-
tion.
when you go in the voting
BOOTH" Mr.. Almond replied,
you vote that ballot according
to the dictates of your own con-
science. I have never said there
was a legal obligation to support
the nominees of the party. ]
have never said it and I have
never thought it."
Mr.. Almond had explained
earlier, however, that there is a
moral obligation" to support
the party nominees by those who
participate in a primary.
Disputed by Hoffman.
Mr.. Hoffman said, "The ulti-
mate effect Of Mr.. Almonds rul-
ing as to q voters moral obli-
cation is that once a voter
announces his engagement to q
political party by participating
in the primary, he must marry
her on the day of the general
election regardless of what he
has found out about her in the
interim period between engage
ment and wedding.
"Mr. Almond says that the pri-
mary groom is morally obligated
to marry the election bride, ano
is not entitled to a second guess
before he binds himself II.
revocably."
One reason he challenges thi.
view, Mr.. Hoffman said, is be-
cause successful nominee in {
primary might well have beer
convicted of a crime in the in
terim period before the elec-
ticn.
What would be the situation?'
the Republican asked, "if pri'
mary candidate ran on one plat.
form and then reversed hi,
field as far as issues are con-
Cerned in his bid for votes in the
general eleCGlOn!
Mr.. Almond defended another
of his rulings-that a person
does not lose his party standing
when he enters a primary anC
then supports presidential can
didate of a different party in the
ensuing election.
Ruling in 1929.
Mr.. Hoffman charged that thi:
ruling by Mr.. Almond and two
Of his predecessors was the re-
suit of political expediency'
sanctioned under the dominant
Democratic machine in Vir-
ginia."
The Republican recalled that
the first such ruling came ir
1929, the year after Virginia
went Republican in the A
Smith-Herbert Hoover contest
Gen. Eisenhower carried the
State last year.
Mr.. Hoffman said that prior to
1929, the Attorney General hao
held Gin 1929 that a vote fol
a Republican elector for Presi-
dent and Vice President "consti-
tuted a ballot for the Republican
Party and hence made the voter
legally ineligible. if challenged
to participate in the next Demo
cratic primary"
He added, The correctness OF
this ruling is not disputed by
me-"
Mr.. Almond replied with some
heat that the law had been
changed between 1923 and 1929
"If he looked up that law and
didn't tell you," Mr.. Almond
roared, IT accuse him of intel
lectual dishonesty. If he didn't
look it up, I accuse him of flag
rant inefflciency.
Now, Mr.. Hoffman, I'm only
hanging one of them on you ano
you can take your choice"
Vote for ElectOr.
Mr.. Almond said a vote for q
presidential elector" is not q
vote for a nominee of a politica.
party, hence that vote has nc
bearing on qualifications to vote
in a party primary. He asked
why Republicans hadn't objected
to that view before now.
"They don't care about who
voted for Gen. Eisenhower but
they are trying to convince every
one who voted for Gen. EiSen-
hover in 1852 that he is a Re.
publican unto endless perpe
tuity."