xt7mgq6qzq0m_10 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mgq6qzq0m/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mgq6qzq0m/data/87m38.dao.xml unknown 0.45 Cubic Feet 1 box archival material 87m38 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Charles A. Hardin papers Business records -- Kentucky -- Mercer County. Circuit courts. County courts -- Kentucky -- Mercer County. Crime -- Politics and government. Judges. Judges -- Selection and appointment. Judicial opinions -- Kentucky. Political parties -- United States. Prohibition -- Kentucky. Prohibition -- United States. Speeches, addresses, etc. Suffrage -- United States. Suffragettes -- Kentucky. Opinion writings and speeches text Opinion writings and speeches 2021 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mgq6qzq0m/data/87m38/Box_1/Folder_10/Multipage307.pdf undated section false xt7mgq6qzq0m_10 xt7mgq6qzq0m 'h 9 read the record in the suit oibn

Executrixt v. J. w. Rider.

I find that on March 15th, 1910, J. W. Rider as»p
institued an action in the Rockeastle Cir. Court agains
Miller's Executrix for the settlement of the estate of ,_M
Miller, deceased; and’to recOVer an alleged debt ofi$255s50a7 ~.‘
The executrix answered, denying and pleading a setoff of $726.64.,
There was a trial by Jury and a verdict and Judgment against
Rider for three hundred ($300) dollars. On this Judgment
execution was issued, returned "no property" and the present
action in equity, filed March 18, 1912, was instituted on
said judgment and return under section 459 Civil Code. At-
tachments were issued and various garnishess were summoned.

It seems to me the most serious question arises with
regard to the garnishee, enemas Mollie Miller, whose first
husband was Hugh Miller, and who later married J. W. Rider. WW“.
J. W. Rider's first wife was Mae Miller from hm whom he was
divorced. Later she seems to have married a man by name of.
Underwood. To a stranger to the parties the names are con-

Eae Miller Underwood,nnnnmmhhn during her first mar-
riage, owned the hotel property in Mt. Vernon known as the
"Newcomh House" and the old "Miller House." After her di-
vorce she sold this property to Mollie Miller, widow of Hugh
Miller, for $4000, paying $2000 in cash and executing two
notes for $1000 each due 15 6£€“a£d twevyears.w use datETifirfwd
this sale is not clearly fixed by the testimony. Mollie 1‘“
Miller paid the first of the deferred payments. The claim: 2
is made that J. W. Rider paid the last deferred payment of I
one thousand dollars for Mollie Miller and that she owes him
this money which is attached by the plaintiff. ‘


 This claim is unquestionably established by the depo-
sitions of Mao Miller Underwood, F. L. Thompson, M. B. Salin
and J. W. Rider himself, so far as the fact of payment is

concerned. Rider seeks to avoid the legal effect of it by

saying that he paid this note for Mollie Miller with money
which he owed her, but he is unable to give any definite ac-
count of the transactions with Mollie Miller out of which his
indebtedness to her arose or to state the sum total of such

Salin states that Rider was in the possession of that
note in the year 1912, or as he puts ~rd~u
the past nine months," (his deposition being taken on Jan.
3, 1913), and was attempting to obtain a loan on it for
himself by offering it as collateral. Rider says he did
this for his Wife, Mollie Miller Rider, and not for himself,
adding in substance that he never owned this note; that his
wife had paid it off to the original holder. Aside from
the marital relation which under certain circumstances is
strongly presumptive of fraud, the very atmosphere of this
transaction supports Salin's statement, and I am inclined to
think the case is sustained for the plaintiff aside from any
other testimony in it.

I am inclined to think that the transactions with
Thomas Rider and Charles Broadway Rider, his brother and
'nephew,are all of the same piece; butheither Thomas Rider’
cr Chas. Broadway Rider are parties to this action, and they
are entitled to their day in court before any Judgment could be
entered as to them.

It is hard to tell how much of the evidence in this case
is irrevelant and incompetent, but I have considered it
only upon testimony Ihmnh of those mentioned.

I still think you should read the testimony in the case
before ordering a judgment in it.


 Tb the Editor of.


The specious and somewhat belated appeal for party
harmony recently made by Hr. W. J. Fields might have been more effective
for party harmony, and the good of the State as well, had it been made
one year ago. Had the then Governor of Kentucky been as eloquent and
fervid in behalf of party harmony as he now essays to be, the State
might now have Cumberland Falls as a National Park instead of having a
Governor who is reported by the newspapers as being in hashington,D.C.
in collaboration with Hr. Insull, who has been so effective in purify-
ing Illinois politics! Some years ago, Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt
warned women voters to ”watch oil". It would be well to add the warn-
ing "watch power."

Had Mr. Fields made his plea for party harmony a
year ago, the teachers of the State would not now be assessed $25.00
each to buy books for their pupils; the State Board of Health would
not be reduced to penury and its usefulness crippled when the bi—
partisan combine failed to kill it-outright; the insane in the Lening-
ton Asylum would not have had their appropriations reduced to help
carry out a dengéogiflLcampaign promise of the Governor, when there
was every appealing and humane reason to increase the appropriation;
the tuberculous patients, the blind, the needy mothers and infants,

' and unborn, would not have had their sustenance withdrawn or
decreased. The Legislature might have profited by the findings of
the Efficiency Commission to the great and lasting good of the people
of Kentucky. An expert auditing of the State's accounts might have
revealed the amount and the source of the State's debt and how greater

efficiency at less cost in the management of the State's business could

be effected. The Racingagnterests and their allies offensive and de—

fensive might not have beenaso powerful under the leadership of the

doughty Democratic Senators from the Blst and 6th Districts, who



 worked during the last Legisl ture in such admirable harmony with the
Republican Jockey Club lobbyist and all the machinery of the bi-partisan
combine in control at Frankfort;- When such harmony can be secured be-
tween patriots who are divided only by party titles, what is the use

to disturb it because of a mere name?

No member of that bi—partisan symphony has anything
in common with a group of citizens who believe in "equal rights to all
and special privileges to none", in ”the greatest good of the greatest
number", and in the duty of government "to promote the general welfare".
What is the bond to bridge the chasm between groups wearing the same
party name but divided by violations of the basic principles of

The Richmond Register and the Lexington Herald have

suddenly grown vociferous in the interests of the party harmony. It

does not lie in the mouth of anxéfember of the Jockey Club Press Com-

mittee formed at the home of Sena$er Johnson N. Camden July 10, 1927,
after the orgy of misstatement and misrepresentation in which its mem-
bers indulged for nearly four months,now to plead party harmony. Do
these pleaders for harmony credit those to whom they address their plea
with no conviction and no memory?

What great basic principle of self-government of
enlightened people through a free ballot could unite in harmony the
members of that Press Committee and all Who collaborated with it to
mislead voters and a group of citizens win were striving to free the
State from the bi—partisan yoke of special privilege?

In 1924 Kentucky Democrats who with all their souls
believe that it is against public policy to expose for public sale 7
under government license or protection a poisonous habit forming'drugg
recognizing his ability to promote any cause he espOuses, could not/tote

for the Democratic nominee for United States Senator, whose opposition



 to the Eighteenth Amendment and legislation pursuant thereto he had
proclaimed on the floor of the United States Senate and on variousv
platforms throughout the country.

In the Primary 1925 these dry Democrats were
challenged at the polls and thousands of them prevented from voting,
with the result that the Jockey Club and allied interests secured some
valuable members in the Kentucky State Senate.

At the 1926 session of the General Assembly a bill
to amend the Primary Law so as to permit the voter to exercise a
freeman's right of choice in both the Primary and oeneral Election
was introduced. The bill passed the House by a large majority, but
was defeated in the Senate by the faithful Jockey Club group led by'
the Senator from the 51st District.

In 1927 Jockey Club Democrats, to the number of
50,000 Mr. Fields says, voted against the Democratic nominee for
Governor. Now, these Jockey Club Democrats and their allies, having

wrecked the party in the S ate, ask to be given full recognition in

the county and state_conventions to manage a national election.

It is certainly gratifying that at least 50% of.the
State Executive Committee and its Chairman have not forgotten Democratic
principles. In View of the issue in this campaign and the aspirants
for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, it'
is hoped that the committee will deem it wise to abide by the decision
already reached, a decision consistent with the principle of the

present Primary Law upon which the Jockey Club Democrats so strenuously


insisted in 1925 and 1926.


 It is beautiful how willing the lien is to lie down
vai_th the lamb ii the lamb will only be reasonable and consent to lie
inside the lion. ,

Just so long as one group of Democrets nominates
candidates Win put unwholesome appetite above righteous Democratic
aspirations, and special privilege to the racing and allied interests
above "equal rights to all and special privileges to none", so long
will there be division in Democratic ranks.

In 192 4 one group strove as a matter of public policy


to prevent endorsement oi the return of a great evil,and were success—
ful. I
In 1925, 1926 and 1927 the other group strove to
rg tuate e fl1eciel n“1w11eae i‘or a sir gle interest, and were success-

WW? fiWfLWMfiWmW4f/aw

v%g‘4¢7x This basic principle in human conduct goes deeper than


(1) any question of policy that unites men in political parties,

C/j "Righteousness exalteth a nation but sin is a reproach to any people!"

,April 5V,1928.




On this date I have called the State Democratic Executive
Committee for the Commonwealth of Kentucky to convene at the
Seclbach.Hotel at two o'clock p. m., to reconsider the following
resolution, which fixes the qualifications of the voters neces-
sary to permit them to participate in the county legislative
district conventions, together with other matters relating to the
Democratic etate Convention called by the Executive Committee for
June 14, 1928:

“All persons shall be qualified to vote in the county
and legislative district conventions who possess the
qualifications prescribed.by the Constitution for
voters in the regular election to be held on hovember
6, 1928, and who at the November election held on
November 8, 1927, voted for all of the Democratic
nominees whose names appeared on the ballot at the
election. All persons who have become of voting age
since November 8, 1927, and who will be of voting age
on hovember 6, 1928, and declare that they will support
the Democratic nominee at that election, are qualified
to participate in the county legislative district

This call was induced by a petition of three members of the
State Executive Committee, they having the right, if I as Chairman
refuse to convene the Committee, to do so themselves.

The action of the Democratic Executive Committee in declar—
ing in the above-quoted resolution the qualifications of the
elector necessary to permit him to vote in the Democratic precinct
conventions, has been commented upon in such a way as to convince
me that I owe it to myself as; chairman of the Democratic Commit-
tee and to those who supported the policy, to state the reason
for it. I have adopted the policy of restraint, whioth believe
my position as Chairman justified. .whie polioyxl heVe caredully
followed; feerublic agitation is more often used to confuse than
to clarify, and for selfish ends than for public good. But in

this instance, justice to the thing done and to those who supported

.it, demands a sincere statement to the Denocratc of the State who

have constituted us as an authority in the Democratic Party.' that


 I have to say in without malice, feeling, or a desire to hurt
or injure.

The public comment about my casting as Chairman the deciding
vote upon the resolution is a mistake. The resolution was carried
before it come to my vote, but if my voto_hod been decisive of

the question, it would have been cast for the resolution.. I

could not have voted otherwise. I believe in parties. .3 consid-

er them absolutely necessary to democratic nopuhliohn form of
government. It follows that I believe in party discipline in
rules governing party organization. Without it parties would be
useless or impossible.

The duty of the Committee wan made plain and simple by the
settled policy of both of the great parties in Kentucky. "Public
opinion”, after much deliberation and discussion,.had already been
crystalized in legislative enactment. we have on our statute
book what is known as the State Primary Law, in which the qual—
ifications of voters in the primary are fixod. This authority,
under our republican form of government, comes from the organised
and majority opinion of the voters in both parties, and no Dem—
ocratic convention has ever condemned it.

In Section 1550—8 of the Kentucky Statutes, every candidate
in the primary is required to make oath that he intends to nupport
the principles and policies of the Democratic Party and vote for
its nominees at the coming general election, and that he supported
its nominees in the last general election.

Section 1550-19 of the Kentucky Statutes, on “Qualifications"
of Electors", says: _"Bofore a person shall be qualified to vote
in the primary election herein provided for, he shall ponssoe all
of the qualifications now prescribed by the Constitution and as
are now required of voters in regular elections", and ”he shall
in addition to said qualifications be a member of the party for
whose nominees he intends to cast his vote, and shall have affiliated

with said party and supported its nominees, and no person shall


 be deemed to have affiliated with the party in whose primary he
seeks to cast his vote if he voted against the nominee or nominees
of etch party at the LAST GENERAL ELEGTICH."

The Court of Appeals, in the case of Nunnelly vs. Duty, 210
Ky. 356, eoidx‘

“A pereon offering to vote in a party primary is not
qualified if he voted against the nominee or nominees
of the party at the last general election. To be
qualified, he must have_eupported his party ticket
and moot have affiliated in good faith with the party.
He is not qualified if he voted for one of the party's
nominees and against others in the last election.“

The rules of the Democratic Party (16th Section) provide
that no person shall act as committeeman or oommitteewoman who
fails to support all of'the nominees of his or her party. Be it
remembered in this connection; that thie rule was adopted by the
Democrats of Kentucky in convention assembled, and-re-adopted in

many subsequent conventions.,

The action of the Committee merely declared the policy gov—

erning primary elections. It would be ridiculously illogical to
'euggeet that different qualifications should be required of one
‘who votee by being counted in convention, from those required
» 0f one who votes by ballot. Agree been eeon, the power which
‘ created the State Executive Committee had declared for the rule
adopted by the Committee in fixing the qualifications of the
.Demooratiijoter. ghould the Executive Committee of twenty-four
'men and women attempt to override the "popular will“ of the
party, declared in convention assembled, in making a test for
the electorate?. Should the creature override its creator?
Assuming that the committee wee free to ignore the organized
and Cowordineted individual judgments of the Democrats of Ken~
tacky, evidenced by the Statutes of the State and the adopted
rules of conventions, what then should govern the conscience of
the Committee? of course the question rested upon conditions as

they then existed and confronted the Committee. What were the


 facts? The Honorable J. 0. W. Beckham, in a primary where every
voter was pledged to support him, won his nomination by a mog-
nifioont majority, over a popular opponent backed up by some of
the most powerful influences in state politics. It is admitted
that he won by fair means. He came through the primary without
criticism or otain. His title to his nomination hoé no cloud
upon it. In his contest in the final election, he carried eighty
out of one hundred and twenty counties, leading his ticket more
than 15,000. He received 13,000 more votes than any succecofol
candidate for Governor had ever received before. He was defeated,
and all of the rest of the ticket elected. Sampson had counted
for him 47,000 votes not counted for anyone else on either the
Republican or the Democratic ticket. 5,400 of these came from
Campbell County, 7,700 from Kenton, 1,100 from Garter, 5,000 from
Fayette County. No candidate for Governor ever received anything
approximating the-majority of Sampson without carrying his tickct
with him. I

What is there in this showing to induce a relaxation of party

discipline? why in this particular case should fit be argued, as
it has been, that there was an effort to proocribo 50,000 Demo-
crats? Why heatecly ouggeot that it was prompted by revenge and
control of outside factional forces? In thio the committee hac
been done a great injustice. In no oay_can you look upon the.
facts and justify the criticiso. How simple and just are the
requirements for the voter in the resolution criticized! All
that is required is that those who boltec come back through the
door they went out. They went out by failing to Support the
nominoeo.‘ Come back (and God knows we want you and will welcome
you!) by voting the Democratic ticket in the coming regular elec—
tion, and thus be re—ostablished in party privilege.

‘We are startled by the statement made by the Opponents of

the resolution, that it will exclude from the conventions over the


 State 50,000 Democrats. It was Mark Twain who sent the following
humorous telegram when he learned, while abroad, that it was re-
ported in this country that he was dead: ”The report of my death
is very much exaggerated." I would suggest that the report of
50,000 Democratic voterc being excluded, in even more-exaggerated.
No one who has ever been connected with politics or who studied

the vote in the loot election nan possibly believe the unprece-
dented and absurd suggestion that Sampoon really and “honest to

God" received 50,000 votes from Democratic clectors who drew

their finite robes around them and refused to vote for anyone

else on either ticket. I do not believe you can find a single

man elected on the Democratic ticket or defeated on the fRepub-
lican ticket who would stand for any such absurdity. Whether or
not Sampson was or was not entitled to the majority he received,
this is obvious, that no 80,000 democrats, or anything-like it,
Voted for hin.' The otartling statement of 50,000 Demoordte scratch—
ing.Beckhnm, is based upon Semoeon'e majority, which is accounted
'for by 47,000 votes counted for Sampson and not counted for anyone
elee, either on the Republican or on the Democratic ticket. If they

’- were Democrats, and the vote actually counted as cost, we are guilty

of the shocking crime of ozoluding Sampson Democrats from our

counsel. I ‘

I regret vern much the irritating and divisive agitation put
in motion over this resolution. I am of the opinion that if there
had been no objection and no discussion, there would not have been
a vote lost to the party on account of it. The resolution was
discussed and agreed upon by prominent men of the party both
in National and State politics, who approved of it before it
was presented to the Committee. Their names have been unjustifiafldy
used by its opponents, and it has been made to appear that they
opposed it. I am confident that the public will be advised as
to the truth. The trouble started in the Committee with Billie'



 Klair, who opposed the resolution. He might apprOpriately cay:

"I am the rider of the wind, the stirrer of the storm,

And the place I left behind me is still with lightning warm.“

fie had the right to object to the action of the Ocmmittoo. Kow~
ever, I cannot sympathize with him in his horror at some Damocrafic
being cruelly proscribed by the committee. I should like to inquire
of him, how about the camo Democrats prescribing their nominee,
J. C. W. Beckham, and defeating the glowing hopes ana reasonable
expectancy of thousands of Ecmocrato who worked for and supoorted
him in big race? Why should he have bean proscribed? Was there
. any taint upon his nomination, vac there anything in his official
career, wag there anything in his private life, to justify his
prescription? ,

I resent the suggestion of Billie K131: and othcro, that the
Democrats will.lose to the Party thousande who bolted, if not per~
‘mittcd to take part in the convention. I can not think of a more
unspeakable insult to the courage and manhood and principlcs of
those who voted against Beokham. If they did it in good conscience,
they would be controlled by the choractcr of the Democratic nominees
and the principles involved in the support they would give to the
ticket. The position taken by Billie Klair is that if they are
not permitted to vote in the conventions, they will not support
the nominees and the principles involved in the coming State and
National election. I can hardly believe that any Democratic '
voters will throw down principles and refuse to support nominees

because of the discipline of the Democratic organization necessary

to its existence and the temporary loss of a privilege.

Laying aside from consideration all justice and truth and
principle involved in this discussion, and lacking at it from
the stanépcint of expediency and vote getting, can we overlook
the fact that there were 380,000 Democratic votcrs who loyally
stood by Beckham as the leader of their Party, and everyone of



 0% them v:cunded by d§.Q ppointment and chag rin over his defeat

and the manner of his defeat; There is no question in my mind that
QIszW all Qf than will remain loyal, whatever the action of the
Committee; but would it th be unwise W0 8&Y,t0 the loyal Eemocrats
0f KQanc y QhQEQQ ieQQfi in suprWting thQirVSQrty anfl {We nom1~

nQQQ, “It is xesQIVed by the constituted authorities Qf the Party,

‘Wdthat WW is ghe right of every DemocraW Wu DQIW Rowir983 and VOWG

”EEK for whgm hQ pleases“? What is WhQ Quebible Q1 cht in tha coming

iéhal Qrfiotlon, of Qch Q ru.Q? Havc QQ nQW in this resolution
a th~edged Qword, and may 1W noW cWW dQQper by rescinding the
acW1on Qf the vOMWiuteL? thll‘QQZWW'VW"

1W ig‘cdnteudpé by QQHQ, WhaW the mrasidant1al nominee wfI1 in
all probability bQ nominated without a contest, and that tha con—
ventién does not present a conWth 9V8r the nomifiation, but does .
present onQ over the control of the Democratic Party for the next
four years. 11f true, the issue is not-who ahall be President, but
QQQII belting Democrats er loyal Democrats organize the Party?

If WhQ Committee QQQQ fit W0 rescind its action, I shall
acquiesce and give it my sincere support. However, as presently
adviseég‘l am vi the opinion it woulfi be unwiae, and a mistake.

I do not SQekto control the Committee through any Qelfiah motive.
I have no ambition to subserve. I am duly appreciative of the
hQnor conferred upon me by the fiemocrats of Kentucky in select1ng
me for the third time as the Chairman of the State Democratic
Executive and Centra.l Committees. It is not my purpose either

. to seek or to accept the distinction again. My advice to Whe Oom—
mittee 18: “Be juat and fear not. Let all the ends thou.a1mest

at be Why cauntry’s, thy God's, and the truth."




It is my desire to lift a warning before the Democrats of
Kentucky and stress the importance of their attendance upon the
County Convention on June 9. We Democrats, in honor, should with
clear eyes look beyond the lesser loyalties of life to the greater
loyalty we owe to our Party as an instrument of achievement and a
servant to promote the interests of the State and Nation.

There must be an awakening of the individual and collective
conscience of the people, linked to intelligently directed action,
if the Nation is to profit and the Democrats of the state are to
sustain their integrity and the State its honor. We are told we
must not be moved to aggressive action through principle. We must

not interpret rules or declare the law. We must ignore the Rule

of Right. We must not agitate. It will interfere with National

success. Agitation, defined by Burke, is “marshaling the conscience
of the Ration to make the laws.” It was employed by Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson, Lincoln, and all great leaders of this and other
nations. It is the revealer of truth, it awakens public conscience,
it stimulates action, it purifies, it is essential to the rule I
of the peeple. A little airing is good and wholesome. It kills

the little nasty germs which infest the body politic. Let us have

Kentucky, with other states and the Nation, suffers under the
reproach of corruption and frauds in primary and general elections
and graft and dishonor in high places. One of our great statesmen
has said:""Whenever you get somebody with influence to do some-
thing that somebody else without influence cannot do, that is graft!
The call upon the Democrats of the State is soberly and diligently
to survey our Party's history and inquire into the conditions
existing at our National capital and at our State seat of Government

during the last Legislature, and fearlessly face the truth. It




13 of flurrent rewfirt, and tha cuurga in onanly mafia, that in any
ecat of mavarnmmnt at Franafwrfi wag erected a ainister wwwwr
”greater than tug paapla thamaelvan”; that tha iagimlatlva W111
yiélaafi in part t0 the préEHU$a of n gran? of agantfi “marked,
gaming and flifinad" ta éa aim bifldinfi U? afirtain ewlfifih fififiarwwfia
an” anawvrfibla'mnly ta munh interamta. T&5ae agenta, 1% 15 Ear»

alfied, cwnaimtefi of prasent afficialfi, wxwufficialfl and labbyiwfia

cf bath partiem, whowe aamea are wwittan Earga, te‘bw read hy all.

T0 them party name 1% maraly a tag, witheut dwfinitifin er maaflinfi.
Ehgir mark wag Open, fearlemm, dirast anfi eanaertad,in lflbbififl

anfi upon tum fleet of the legislative hall. $hflir fififirmtiflflfi kaV%
gauged the hat and fetid breath wf acandal, jUQt fir unjufit, ta
atmin the furwatiam and aata of legialativa aamwittacw, the arggnv
iaation ef penal and oharitmbla ingtitutiana, rfima departmanta.
gun athcr depaxfimcnafi of fitmtw. They wuuld mhmasw ta baaoma a
graup of ue1f~oen9tituted directara of hwfihrbranahea of the Leg“
1alatura and of both 0f our great Partiea. In eithar $arty, thair
dafemfi in @Amng or purpmaea 13 raaentad by leading anfi fiiracting

a bolt. Shay ignore party diaczpline anfi come bask. fiat $0 claim
tha right t0 narve. but demanding oantrol. Quay arrogantly claim
a balanea ofi pawwr. whay gaauma the yrerogativea of rayalty.
“Tflay knuw n0 law. ?hcy can as n6 wrang." En the apirit of th&
haughzy manarch, Louie the Fourteenth. thay assert: “We are the
mtate. fireaent ysur partfeliaa £0 ua.“ final} their power Ea
tnereasefi? W6 knuw it will ha, unleaa the £09098 sf the whole
paople ifi our ?qrty come into acttan and amaert that: right af
supremacy. Th9 deduction ringa clear fram past parfnrmance and
pregent inaioaticns, fihat they are in the fight ta organiaa and
control tfio coming flemaoratia caunty oanvantiona, and thraugh

tfiem the general canvantion, aufi nae their power to Beige the
party machinary and thug aatabliah ané pergetuata their éomimamce.

There can be no question but that the great majority of loyal


 organization Democrats should control county Democratic conven-
tions, and that the minority led by selfish groups should fail
in their purpose. The Democratic men and women, upon their own
motion, should take charge of the mass conventions at each county
seat on June 9 at two o'clock, and determine the character of
their own Party. We are told that the object of the coming con~
vention is to select National delegates. Be not deceived. This
is only a part—truth. It is also a convention to organize the
Democratic Party in Kentucky and to place authority in a Demo—
cratic State Executive and Central Committee which places the
control either in the hands of the people or in the hands of the
“departyisers”. We are told the convention concerns only national
issues. Again you meet a epecious suggestion. Honesty in gov-
ernment, corruption in office, graft, the rule of the people,
purity of conduct, are issues in both hation and State, and you
cannot ignore them in one without losing them in both. The call
of the Democratic Party is for an electorate bound to no irre—
sponsible group of men and seeking no special interest, no jobs;
an electoratedesiringan opportunity to serve and having a "decent
reopect for the opinion of mankind". I have an abiding canfidence
in the virtue of the great body of the people in Kentucky.

The Kentucky Derby has passed into history. All were thrilled

with its account over radio and vivid and eloquent newspaper re—

ports. May not we of Kentucky who love the horse and true sports-

manship, draw from it a lesson in this hour of our State and
National crisis? Thousands looked on with eager interest as the
thoroughbreds were brought from their paddocks. A contest of
speed, courage and blue blood was to take place,e—a sport of kings.
It must he a clean race. Rules were adopted to govern the race
and determine the winners, the slightest deviation from which
meant defeat and dishonor. Every safeguard was observed to up-

hold the integrity of the track and the honor of the classic event.


 fianay wan wagered upan favaritea up 1n©o tha milliunw.

airw wmgwrefi him thcuwanfim, out fif big Suwarfluity, mufl ae‘gawrwv
even ta the widww*~wagarfid their mite, “amt 0f zhmir nacaflmity“,ww
kmfixiamnn, fiwntuckiaflm, natablaa all. ?rua apartfiwanmhip wra-

‘, a a. .‘ u U ~, :g , <8 . 5;..V,..‘..,v.‘.-.,.-V , 3 ‘33 ,4 ,; H ,v
vuilwfi. 5 “iuuxm “mg a in! “taunu‘ $1 aficiuumcat, Ln; Efifl Wimfig‘

wag graclaimefi. Lwfiwra ana winnara caufltfifi fihfiir lanaaa and

gains; fhere wag nu murmur, n0 camglainz. I? w&$ & fair raga,
and the fantflat baxna wan. flaw camgm the pmnwgyric of cur fifi?‘
arnar, ufion thoraughbraaa anfi lavarn ef clean aywrfi, aonmlufiing
with tha high greeted aentiment: "flay horaa racxng, the ayarfi
'cf kingm, ercwned anfi uncrownaa. fiver remain fair flflfi alaan, and
may tha beat Marne alwaya mama” fiaowevelt yartinantly waid,

”fin aggreflaive fight far right 1% tha granteat syart in the
warld." Pay tha unmramnad kinge and quaena 9f Kenhueky, gmvareignn
all. in recugnitiwn Of their asvcreignty and in thm pawer 0f
their might, makn political raaes in Vantueky the agart 9f kinga
anw m&km sham ta becoma and remain fax: 33a clean, mnfi may aha
bflat man Wifi3 “¢0 yuur tfints, ¢ Zaraal.” "fierwg ycux country

without aniling yaur soul."


 lift 3 3333133 hfitor; 333 333333: 33 of

Y33fiu3ky 333 333333 the 13:333 rt3.nce of their attnnur”cs U303 the
".‘ILJ‘Ll‘LVLf ,,i{17{2r13 ii}. “Ii";é-t‘“ 5:: 111.3 a r21 3...? '==-'i‘t1;;
31333 3333 1333 333333 333 133333 13y313 33 0f life 33 the wvwl£3r
133313; 33 333 33 333 ”:Ity 33 an inmtrument 0f aahisvement and 3

3t 33 urom3te the int3r33t3 of the fitnfie and 333103.

33333 3333 be an awakening of the individual and 331‘33t1v
3333313333 of the people, 113333 33 inte llirently dir