Newspaper Page Text
NEWNAN HERALD & ADVERTISER
VOL. XLV.
NEWNAN, GA., FRIDAY, JULY 15, 1910.
NO. 42
Farmers>’
Supply Store
CHAIRMAN HEWLETTE A. HALL
Explains and Defends Primary Rules Adopted by State
Executive Committee.
Sorghum Seed.
Nqw is the time to plant Sorghum Seed as a feed crop.
We have the Early Amber, Orange and Red Top varieties.
Tobacco.
2.000 lbs. “Merry Widow” Tobacco just received. We
sell this Tobacco at wholesale prices. Buy now and save
2 cents a pound, as the extra tax will go on soon.
Horse Feed.
Try some of our Alfarina. It comes as near making
old horses and mules young as anything you can feed on.
It is fine for both young and old stock.
Much Time for a Little Money.
We have received a shipment of 8-day Clocks from the
■factory. We are selling a $2.50 Clock for $1.98, (cash,) as
long as they last. A good Clock saves a family more con
fusion and time than any piece of furniture they can have
in the home.
Clothing.
We handle the celebrated Curlee Suits and Pants. We
have the Curlee Pants in $2.50 and $5 lines. Try one pair
of these and you will have no other.
Shoes and Oxfords.
FOR LADIES—“High Point,” $1.75; “Dixie Girl',
$2; “Virginia Creeper,” $2.50. FOR MEN.—“Americus,
$3.50; “Pilgrim,” $3.50.
All grades and prices. Men’s, women’s and children’s
shoes always in stock. Can fit anybody.
Farm Implements.
Scovil Hoes, Handle Hoes, Hyde Cultivators, Little
Joe Harrows, Grain Cradles, etc.
We do our best to serve and please the farmers of our
county. Come to see us. You will always be welcome at
our store. Yours to serve,
T. G. Farmer & Sons Co.
19 Court Square : : G and 8 W. Washington
Telephone 147
Great Reductions
ON
All
Straw Hats at Cost.
Men’s low-quartered Shoes and ladies’ and children’s
Slippers at greatly reduced prices.
We have too many Lawns, Muslins, Dimities, etc., for
this season of the year, and you will save money by buying
these goods from us.
A full stock of “Lion” Shirts and Collars—the best on
the market. Any size, from 14 to 17^.
Finck’s and Hapgood Overalls in any size w r anted.
Our stock of Groceries is as complete now as at any
time of the year. In this department you will find every
thing carried in the grocery and feed line—Postell’s Flour
Cotton Seed Meal, Poultry Feed, Shorts, Bran, Hay, etc
Try a can of Carhartt’s Coffee. We carry a big stock o
this celebrated Coffee. A 5-lb. can of “Leader” Coffee for
$1, and J. K. No. 2 and B. D. & T., put up in 4-lb. cans
for $1.
Come to see us. We cannot mention every article
but come and ask, and we will be pretty sure to have it
Get our prices on buggy and wagon Harness. Can save
you money on these goods.
H. C. ARNALL MDSE. CO
TELEPHONES 342 and 58.
The rules for the government of the
August primary were adopted June 4,
1910. At that time there were no an
nounced candidates for Governor, and
the opinion was general that there
would be no contest this year. From
the date of the committee’s action un
til a few days ago the rules seemed to
have met with general satisfaction, as
no protest or criticism was heard from
any quarter.
The rules speak for themselves, and
are perfectly fair and just. If proper-
y applied they result in no advantage
to one candidate over another. A con
structive criticism which has for its
purpose the improvement and better
ment of the rules is well and will result
in good; but a captious criticism, which
is inspired by a desire for partisan ad
vantage, is harmful and destructive,
rather than constructive, in its effects.
The August primary is the plan for
naming the candidates which the Dem
ocratic party of Georgia will present to
the general electorate in the State and
national elections to be held in October
and November next. The question of a
citizen’s Constitutional right to vote
for whom he pleases, and to refuse to
vote for whom he pleases, is not in
volved. The right of participation in
party primaries has always depended
upon conformity with the rules of the
party holding the same. These rules
have always been established by the
duly chosen party authorities.
Only two plans for making party
nominations are to be seriously consid
ered. One is the blanket primary over
the entire State, without regard to the
county units. The other is by a con
vention composed of delegates appor
tioned among the counties on the basis
of representation in the lower branch
of the General Assembly. The blanket
primary plan was first indorsed in this
State by the Macon Convention, Sept.
4 r 1908. The State Democratic Execu
tive Committee, in accordance with the
mandate of that convention, called
general blanket primary over the entire
State, to be held June 4, 1908. Judge
A. L. Miller, of Bibb county,
chairman of this committee, and Hon.
Hooper Alexander, of DeKalb county,
was vice-chairman. For the purpose of
identification I shall call it the Miller
committee. . >
For many years prior to 1908 what is
known as the plurality rule was of
force in our State primaries. The Mil
ler committee abrogated the plurality
rule, and for the first time in this State
established the majority rule. This, to
be sur.e, was a new departure.. It set
aside an old party custom;—but a cus
tom should not be adhered to simply
because it is a custom, else progress
would cease and development would no
longer be the law of intelligent life.
Teat a particular practice is a custom
carries with it, at best, only the weight
of a favorable presumption. The ulti
mate test which should be applied to ev
ery custom is, IS IT RIGHT? I am sure
Judge Miller and the good men compos
ing his committee acted from motives
of purest patriotism, and from consid
erations of the party’s best interest.
I most heartily commend the principle
of majority rule inaugurated by them.
It is sound, and Democratic to the
core.
The present State Democratic Exec
utive Committee, while preserving the
principle of mcjority rule inaugurated
by the Miller committee, returned to
the old county unit plan of nominations
by a convention composed of delegates
apportioned among the counties in ac
cordance with the Constitutional basis
of representation in the Legislature.
As respects this particular phase of the
question, the present rules only differ
from the rales of the Miller committee
in the return to the county unit plan
and the provision for prorating the vote
in case no candidate receives a majority
of the total vote cast, instead of a sec
ond primary, as provided for under the
Miller rules.
It is conceded that patriotic citizens
may honestly differ as to which is the
wisest and best system—the blanket
primary, or what is known as the coun
ty unit system. But true and loyal
Democrats can have but one opinion as
to what was the duty of the present
Democratic Executive Committee.
The fourth plank in the State Demo
cratic platform (which is the law gov-
esning the committee, as well as all
Democrats, until changed,) says—
“We favor a return to the Constitu
tional representative system, or county
unit plan, of representation in our
State Conventions, with its safeguard
ing checks and balances.”
Just as the Miller committee were
bound to carry into effect the mandate
of the platform of 1906, so the present
State committee felt bound by the
mandate of the Democratic Convention
of 1908. This should settle the ques
tion as to the duty of the present com
mittee. But, waiving that point, I am
of the opinion that the county unit plan
is the wiser, safer, and for many rea
sons the more desirable plan. It pre
serves to the smaller rural counties the
voting strength and power vouchsafed
to them in the fundamental law—the
Constitution. I have heard no criticism
of the action of the committee in re
turning to the county unit plan. 1
conclude, therefore, that at least this
part of the present rules meets with
general approval. Indeed, my good
friend, Judge A. W. Fite, while criti
cizing the committee for adhering to
the'majority rule inaugurated by the
Miller committee, commended it for re
turning to the county unit plan. As
suming then that the county unit plan
is the wiser, the question recurs—Did
the present committee act wisely in
preserving the majority rule inaugura
ted by the Miller committee? I most
earnestly believe so. Any plan which
puts into the hands of a minority the
power to control the nominations of a
party is a menace to the very existence
and integrity of the organization. The
policy or plan which enables a minority
candidate to become the nominee of the
party is inherently wrong;—it is vic
ious. If Democracy means anything,
it means the rule of the majority, and
any policy which violates that principle
is dangerous to the perpetuity of the
organization. The Macon convention
foresaw the evil of a plurality, (which
is in effect, a minority,) nomination,
and provided that a candidate, to be
•the nominee, must receive a majority
of the entire vote cast. If no candi
date received such majority, a second
primary was to be held.
Having returned—as we think wisely,
and as we were bound to do under the
mandate of the party platform of 1908
—to the county unit plan, the question
arose—What rule shall govern within
the limits of the several counties in the
primary, the majority or plurality rule?
We had only changed the limits of the
territory to be effected. Instead of
the State boundary, we fixed the coun
ty boundaries;—instead of State-wide,
it was to be county-wide. Why should
a different rule as to the number of
votes which would entitle a candidate
to the nomination be established where
county lines are observed, from what
obtains when State lines are the limits?
If the majority rule is sound when the
primary is limited by the State boun
dary, why is it not sound when limited
to county boundaries? What virtue is
there in the size of the territory to be
effected that makes one rule good when
applied to large territorial limits, and
pt the same time bad when applied to
small territorial limits?
The present committee saw no good
reason for changing the majority rule
inaugurated by the Miller committee
for the entire State simply because we
had changed the territorial limits from
thbse of the State to those of the sev
eral counties. The majority rule w
therefore adhered to.
This issue is effectually settled by
frank answer to the question—What
rule should govern when all the coun
ties jointly act in making nominations
for State House officers? When the
counties come together in a State con
vention to make nominations, should
the majority or plurality rule govern
It is not an open question in this
State that the majority rule must gov
ern when the bounties act jointly in
making nominations. There was a time
when the two-thirds rule governed
when the counties jointly acted. If
the majority rule is wise when all the
counties act together in convention
why is not the Bame rule wise when the
counties severally act in their prima
ries? If the plurality rule is desirable
when the counties severally act, why is
it not desirable when they come to
gether and jointly act? Why?
It being thus established that the
majority rule should still be adhered to
the next question that presented itself
was what Bhould be done in the event
no candidate received a majority? Two
plans suggested themselves—to- pro
rate the county's vote among the can
didates in proportion to the votes re
ceived in the primary, or have
second primary. There are certain se
rious objections to a second primary.
They are expensive. A candidate who
has already borne the heavyjdrain of
State campaign should be spared the
expense of a second primary if possible
Few men can afford under present con
ditions to aspire to the high office of
Governor, because of the expense inci
dent to a State campaign.
Again, under the county unit plan
who should ran in those counties where
no candidate received a majority of the
votes—the two highest in that particu
lar county, or the two highest in the
State? To permit all the candidates to
run over in the county could not be
considered, because the same result
might follow as in the first primary.
To limit the candidates to the two
highest in the particular county might
result in compelling the people of that
county to vote as between candidates
who Btood no chance for the nomina
tion, and who had received but a small
vote in the State outside of that particu
lar county. It did not seem fair to deny
to any county the right to choose, in a
second primary, between the two can
didates who had demonstrated, by their
vote in the first primary, a likelihood of
being nominated. At the same time,
should a county be denied the right to
vote for her favorite candidate, even
though he might not be either of the two
highest in the other counties of the
State? Such a rale would have brought
a protest from the counties which were
willing to stand by their favorite can
didate under all circumstances. The
situation was not free from difficulties.
It was decided that a .plan of prorating
the vote of a county among the candi
dates in proportion to the vote received
by each was the fairest, and involved
no additional expense to the candidate.
The plan which approaches nearest
TO GIVING REPRESENTATION IN THE
CONVEVTION TO THE VOICE OF THE PEO
PLE AS EXPRESSED IN THE PRIMARY IS
THE MOST DEMOCRATIC, AND CERTAIN
LY the fairest. Of course, absolute
perfection in this regard is impractica
ble) but great improvement can be
made over the old system of the plu
rality rule.
Consider the evils of the old system.
Take DeKalb county, for illustration.
In the last State primary there were
cast in that county, in round numbers,
2,800 votes.. Suppose A, B and C were
candidates for Governor. A received 890,
B 920 and C 900. Under the old plu
rality rule A would getthe entire vote of
the county, while B and C, who received
between them over 1,800 out of a total
of 2,800 votes, would get no represen
tation in the convention. In oth
er words, a majority of the people of
the'county would be disfranchised, so
far as having representation in the
convention is concerned. Hence, near
ly two-thirds of the votes would not be
counted, and go unrepresented. Under
the present rule this vote would result
in giving A 1J votes, B II votes and
II votes. The bare statement of the
case carries its own argument, and is
sufficient to convince any unprejudiced
mind of its fairness.
Let us understand each other. Do
those who criticize the present rules
wish to return to the plurality rule?
Do they sanction and advocate minority
nominations? Or do they wish to have
the blanket primary, and thus deny to
the smaller counties their Constitution
al strength and power in the nomina
ting convention? Let us be frank about
it. What substitute plan do the critics
of the present rale suggest? The evils
of the plurality plan are gross and ap
parent. The plurality plan was con
demned by the Macon convention of
1906; it was repudiated by the Miller
committee. Who would revive it?
But we are told that the present plan
is confusing and difficult of application
Suppose this contention be granted,
Should considerations of ease and con
venience weigh in the scale against
what is fair, just and right? The easi
est thing in life is to do wrong—to do
right is a never-ending struggle against
the forces of evil. Shall we choose the
unfair and the wrong because they are
easy and simple, and criticize and find
fault with the just and right because
they are difficult of attainment?
Yet, as a matter of fact, in prorating
the vote of any given county among
the candidates the difficulty is more ap
parent than real. To prevent small and
infinitesimal fractions, the rule pro
vides—
"Should any candidate for any of the
offices named in this paragraph’’—[that
is, for Governor, State House offi
cers, Supreme and Appellate Court
Judges, Superior Court Judges and So-
licitors-General,]—“receive in said pri
mary in a given county an insufficient
number of votes to entitle such candi
date to one-fourth of a vote of such
county in the Democratic State Con
vention, then the same shall not be
counted, and the delegates from such
county shall be apportioned among the
other candidates in the proportion above
indicated.”
The rule further provides—
“In prorating the vote of any given
county among the respective candi
dates, some unit or multiple shall be
adopted which will prevent any frac
tional vote less than one-fourth in the
State Convention.”
To ascertain the number of votes in
the primary which will represent one-
fourth of a vote in the State Conven
tion, this simple rule should be fol
lowed:
In counties having two voteB in the
convention, divide the total number of
votes cast in the primary for the par
ticular office under consideration by 8,
and the quotient thus obtained repre
sents the number of votes a candidate
for that particular office must receive
in the primary in order to be entitled to
representation in the convention.
In counties having four votes in the
convention, you divide as above by 16,
and the quotient thus obtained repre
sents the number of votes in the pri
mary which stand for one-fourth of a
ote in the convention.
In counties having six votes in the
convention, you divide as above indica
ted by 24, and the quotient obtained
represents the number of votes in the
primary which stand for one-fourth of
a vote in the convention.
After this multiple is obtained, as ex
plained above, then take the total vote
received by the respective candidates
in the primary, and each will be enti
tled to as many fourths of a vote in the
convention as said multiple will go into
the total vote received by each.
Sometimes it may happen that after
apportioning to each candidate one-
fourth of a vote for each multiple thus
received, there will remain a fractional
part of the county’s vote in the conven
tion unapplied. If this unapplied frac
tional vote of the county is one-fourth,
then it should be given to the candi
date who has the largest vote in excess
of the even number of multiples al
ready given him. If this unapplied
fractional vote of the county is one-
half, then one-fourth of it should be
given the candidate having the largest
vote in excess of the even number of
multiples covered by the vote already
given him, and the other one-foutfh to./ > v'
the candidate having the next. highest ■
number of votes in excess of the eve'fi
number of ihultiples covered by the
vote already given him.
Take the following example; Sup
pose there are 900 votes cast for Gov
ernor in Douglas county. As Douglas
has two votes in the convention, you di
vide 900 by 8, and it gives you 112i,
which represents the number corres
ponding to one-fourth of a vote in the
convention. But as there are no half
votes in the primary, it would be neces
sary for a candidate for Governor to re
ceive in Douglas county 113 votes to en
title him to one-fourth of a vote in the
convention. Suppose A, B and C are
candidates for Governor, and receive in
Douglas county the following vote:
A 345, B 290, and C 245-a total of
900 votes. The multiple, as above as
certained, is 1121. This multiple is con
tained in A's votes three times, with
71 over. A would therefore be entitled
to a delegate in the convention empow
ered to cast three-fourths of a vote for
him.
B’s vote is 290. The multiple js con
tained in 290 twice, with 65 over. This
would give B a delegate authorized to
cast two-fourths (or one-half) of a vote
for him in the State Convention.
(Concluded on Fourth Page.)
DON’T EXPERIMENT.
You Will Make No Mistake If You
Follow This Newnan Citizen's
Advice.
Never neglect your kidneys.
If you have pain in the back, urinary
disorders, dizziness and nervousness,
it’s time to act and no time to experi
ment. These are all symptoms of kid
ney trouble, and you should seek a
remedy which is known to cure the kid
neys.
Doan’s Kidney Pills is the remedy to
use. No need to experiment. It has
cured many stubborn cases in Newnan.
Follow the advice of a Newnan citizen
and be cured yourself.
William T. Lazenby, 64 Wesley
street, Newnan, Ga., says : “I thinx
very highly of Doan’s Kidney Pills, and
consider them an excellent remedy for
kidney complaint. Before using them,
I had suffered from kidney trouble for
several years, during which time I
tried many remedies without receiving
any benefit. My back ached a great
and I was always annoyed hy too fre
quent passages of the kidney secre
tions. The contents of one box of
Doane's Kidney Pills, procured at Lee
Bros.’s drug store, gavo me wonderful
relief.”
For sale by all dealers. Price 60
cents. Foster-Milburn Co., Buffalo,
New York, sole agents for the United
States.
Remember the name—Doan’s—and
take no other.
Even if the average man could be a
successful merchant he’d nearly always
rather starve to death chasing after a
public office.
Must Be Above Suspicion.
Kidney and bladder ailments are so
serious in their consequences, and if
unchecked so often fatal, that any
remedy offered for their cure must be
above suspicion. Foley Kidney Pills
contain no harmful drugs, and have suc
cessfully stood a long and thorough
test. Sold by all druggists.
For Rheumatism and all Blood
Eruptions and Liver Complaints.
I Dr. Ho
Sold tr
Brown & Brooks, Newnan, Ga.; Turin
Drug Co., Turin, Ga.