xt7mgq6qzq0m_4 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. Correspondence text Correspondence 2021 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7mgq6qzq0m/data/87m38/Box_1/Folder_4/Multipage168.pdf undated section false xt7mgq6qzq0m_4 xt7mgq6qzq0m  






 St. Sylvester’s Church

Rev. P. Leo, O. S. 13., Pastor
Ottenheim, Kentucky

Waynesburg, Ky.,
R. F. D. No. l


I hM ?/

”/56 M‘ .4; W/jm m 2M 9&4 M
(/4 1‘4— W, AMWA
«A M144 /¢£¢—.a
W/xiz/ 44.72: W, i
/% n7 W M: 2&0,


 ‘5 ‘ 49/ ,-

‘i"“?“' wax.





kentutkp iBemntratit iéeahquarters


Dear Judge:-

I see nothing in the inclosed'clipping from a compilization
of the election laws which would necessarily require a meeting of the
committee(State Central) You have doubtless been given indirect if
not direct authority to act for the State CENTRAL commitaain the

The names s ent you by Senator Glenn were:

W.W.Booles, Taylorsville, Ky
Wm.Head, Louisville,
WSCEMOntgomery, Elizabethtown
S.D.Rouse, Newport.

The names sent you by the Frankfort man were:-

Bush W.Allen, Harrodsburg,

Claude Thomas, Paris

S.D.Rouse‘ Newport
W.O.Head , Louisville,‘
H.R.Lawrence, Cadiz,

MUst truly ace. ,





kentutkp flemutratit Eeahquarterg




ay afternoon' 3 Post. I am sex ing
conwid7r Eh L


" n . . I! ,1
ion may not have noticed ihls llttl: dig

d ,



if, mummt S
anew hon he(Humphr " ”



‘ \
IIIllIl-lll-I - III-ll-I-l


latentutky ilBemunatic Eeahquarters


yuesdey Loon.

:ou =;1 , “ » attached let terg,oopi1es and memo
closely, blemn “—”“*”—

f0“ h l
so?ro val some copy


{wi- LJ. gL'. {J


Uamgaign cuallmeu in counly and pteeitat
mail,under separate cover.

“fly-1 »' ‘1 ~ " - "
dam a talk Ilt,n Ju : Lilndler I»?XUA$”

Eavlci"vlllc,1L ClthW' ovcr the ohone ebout post offi co antur.
;. had been loolivr lor m3 He and his oa~"u~1aw,LLe thI RLlé
"0hinfivherd for tne man ?fld agsitst .le moman.They arc v: .

fin thewe ,andt it is the first time they have been Cplit

old him tha vou would ‘robably be very much against violating


he proovietieL,apl therefore agaigfié takitg any part of any kind
+ .


un Ll after you aI-e elected,but would sot,when requesteo,1f L e
matter had not been disposed of. He said that was all he n-d the
friends of Cain asked of you. The matter is in good shxpe to
leave alone,insofar as any action that ill become knoxn is con-


3“” Went
to prepare fov Cougiw *
can quickly pr;pa1e them here
mailing at home oost office.

signirfl and

I Undflf Stand your purpose in,aekifig and thr. wisdom
of holding back the Lecord Ldflobo a thich you phoned me -ent think
ht it in time in the outlying exchange-"of the neoord.lt is
1'd to get an.j bony to “rdovstend that there are tTO elootiong
[H67 3116 about,a nfl 11T~rvstoo in hem,thet we me§fifiav5 to resort
some' pep” of some sort.

ngt tru.ljf & c:.,



 33'3” ”I‘L“”
'63 1:33:31, :32: 5-13.33.” . ,
EHVH‘UefarG me 336 flawséfiparfi.
kuik.) 335311 '83“) ’53
3f Judge
in a 031m, HQ mifiefi, lung canal: 3L3 1W$Us a:
533 puai3ian taken by the xoanN3 n a ramu1u3iaw
Hemaoratic 33333 fizecutive 33m, 3333,
*23 baltera 333 :33 eati3led 30 3033 in
canventimnm; 33¢ @3333 an gxtremely waraana: 133333
we 33 33333333, demmnding an explanatian 93 333 game raaalutiuu.
15‘}: would ‘33:.- s-‘e; 311133;: 710 3313393“ 3:35.31: 33; 3‘333333333332 122 2.2:; 13.2mm»-
awnal way 313$ ny frianfl 311303 3133.31u31333, hut i
to Turago 33:3 niaaaure im 33 effort 3% m3 3 3332

fchtwy 3n dain; 39 16 fibviaus

idea 0? the awaitiun taken by me.

You say that I take iagum with a racant 333:3 mew 3 TH“

and furtfifir gay: “since you take larva with fig 333133

I find?GG$ this com unientian 31338313 33 yam.”
13333 Inspectfuily to say, yam 3333 n33 evau in my 3=ou~+t

when I adbra3refi the 333303333 3f Kentucky.
nor seen you“ statement 30 which yen refar. 33393 333
.public letter, M ;;=’ fl about ma far y7u3 3Wrtie 3 39f“"

and I maulfl fird no one wha raad it, and n0 acrap~baak in

it had been wtcoerVQ3. Ta ygu 3333 I did n33 intand 3w

,’3 immue with you, n03 dié A w W2 30 ch33133§3 npraun M11?
3:1": ywu 331“.
I raaret very much 333 ;m '.3" 3 3 7+; 3H1 €333 5103- 393

ask me to state “publicly thruug? “33 33: m; intelligence


 as a lawyer, my responsibility as Chairman“, certain things i have
previously stated. I regret that you believed it necessary to put
it so impressively. I assure you that in my first statement I
was thoroughly sincere, and Spoke as a lawyer and as Chairman of
the Party. I am of the opinion the resolution referred to will
have to be interpreted in the light of the Statute governing pri~
maries, plus the decisions of the Court of Appeals, and if there
is a conflict, the law governing primaries must prevail. Theref,
fore, as the Court has decided: "A person offering to vote in a
party primary is not qualified if he voted against the nominee or
the nominees of the party at the last general election; he is not
qualified if he voted for one of the party's nominees and against//
others at the last election." 7
This answers in part the question addressed to me, if I sought
to exclude from all the precinct conventions Democrats who failed
to vote for all the Democratic candidates in the election of 1927.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." Why should I
repeat? Neither I nor any member of the Committee made an effort
to exclude anyone from the conventions. We undertook only to de-
clare the rational opinion of the Democratic Party as ezpressed
in legislative enactment and in convention assembled. Can we not
relieve this discussion from further personal attack by stating
again, in substance: The effort of the Committee was not to ex—
elude from party participation, but to declare and establish the
supremacy of party discipline contemplated by the lat of the Com—
monwealth and the rules of the party, framed in convention as—
sembled. Nor can it be truthfully asserted that this action comes
from an approval of the policy, acting in a legislative capacity,

though it may be said that the Committee upheld the popular will

of the Party in the exercise of a judicial function, while acting

in an official capacity, by recognizing the law of the land and
the rules of the Party. -


 Quoting here from Judge Wilson's letter an extract from James

A. Woodburn's "Political Parties and Party Problems in the United

for the purposesof its managers." The Democratic State Hrscutive

and composite opinion" of the members of the Party in Kentucky

Committee in its action endorse the principle. The "aggregate \i:

is only to be found in the Statute and rules referred to, and theA
Committee's effort was to declare the same for the government of
precinct conventions.

You ask me if on different occasions while Chairman of the
Democratic Committee, in the call of conventions, I advocated
the exclusion of Democratic bolters, and also if I had done so
as a layman; and of course, you "demand an explanationfi. I think
I can make it clear that I have been in nowise inconsistent. But
what of that? What light does it throw upon the subject under
discussion? May I not courteously suggest my surprise at an er~
Member of Congress and an ex—Governor and a lawyer, thus person—
alizing in a public discussion where the public interest is cen—
tered upon the merits of the question? Is it not known to you
that an ad hominum argument is abhorred by the courts and condemned
by parliamentary and ethical Opinion?

Goubert has pertinently said: "Those men who never retract
their opinion love themselves more than they love truth." Emer—
son says:

"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
Adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines."

And he further says: "With consistency a great soul has nothing

to do.‘ Speak what you think, though it contradicts everything you
have said before.“ I almost wish you could convict me of inconsistency.
However, I am certain that I have been perfectly consistent. It

is true, as I remember, that previous official calls for conventiOn



 did not contain the resolution complained of, but the reason is
not only true, but apparent,--we did not think it necessary, as
it was generally understood that the test of the qualifications
to vote in precinct conventions was governed by the primary law,
a fact that has been universally accepted and acted upon. It
was included in the resolutions now in question, because of the
discussion going on, and to prevent an impIOpcr effort to control
illegally the precinct conventions.

You ask: "Did not the Democratic nominee for Governor in
the last campaign publicly proclaim in his campaign Speeches and
through his publicity organs, that there were no political prin~

ciples involved and no political issues at stake in the campaign?

And did you, or not, subscribe to defend and to support the doc»

trine? If you did subscribe to defend and support it, will you
now publicly defend your efforts to departyize the State as an
act in harmony with and in the interest of the principles of the
Democratic Party?"

This question stands out paramount in your letter, and no
doubt you consider it of vast importance to the peeple of Kentucky
and to the decision of the questions discussed. I can but wonder
at the process of mind which evolved it. However, I think I clear-
ly see your position. Your question is syllogistic in its conetruc~
tion. I shall try to simplify it by translating it into a positive
declaration,or an affirmative allegation. "Beckham in his face for
Governor, did not run as the nominee of his Party, but upon issues
not involved in his nomination, and there were no political issues
at stake in his campaign. He departyized the State, and you, Mr.
Chairman, subscribed to it." Am I not stating the basis of your
question, which is not a question at all if you do not stand for
its truth? We are to understand that it was your opinion he was
not entitled to the support of Democrats. There were no p01itica1



 issues at stake, and the Chairman of the Democratic Party in Ken-
tucky joined hands with the partycide and the State was departy—
lead in his race. I cannot agree with your premise, and I plead
guilty to supporting Beckham and the issues upon which he was nom-
inated. You are saying to 380,000 men who heartily supported
Beckham, "You were under no obligation to support him", and to
those who bolted, "You were right in what you did", and you are
saying to us all that we joined an effort to departyize the State.
I cannot refrain from asking you, Governor, why you did not bolt.
I now readily understand why you champion the cause of the bolters.
Would it not have been an act of courage and manliness for you
to have done that which you justified in others? Does your po-
sition account for the tremendous falling—off of the vote in your
Congressional District and especially in the county of your resi—
dence? As in the case of the Scottish chieftain, “One blast from
your bugle horn would have been worth a thousand men." We now
understand why it was not blown.

In answer to your question, I am sincerely of the opinion
that Beckham and those who followed him were not departyizers.
I think you do him a great injustice. I supported Beckham whole-

hesrtedly, as a Democrat, with the highest sense and the truest

understanding of my duty to the Party. I thank you for the word

“departyize”. I think I understand the meaning you give it. I
refuse to believe that those who stood for the issues upon which
Beckham won his race in the primary——a Democratic primary-~and

stood for him as the nominee, deserve the odium of being styled
departyisers or disorganizers. If I catch what you mean,--and I V
am sure that I do--I would fain make this suggestion, that the

true departyizers consist of that group of Democrats and Republicans
who are “bending the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift doth
follow fawning"; who jointly recognize neither party, but seek



 to control both; who beast in their unholy alliance that they
organize and control both branches of the Legislature; who would
control appointments in both Parties; who say to every man who

would seek to serve, “Come my way or taste the bitterness of in-

justice and defeat"; who traffic in pardons and trade in committee

appointments, and who ply skilfully the science of log rolling

in the'legislation of the State, If the State of Kentucky is
ever departyized, it will be through the political manipulations
of those who would prostitute the sacred functions of government
to personal ends and corrupt uses, John G. Calhoun lifted the
finger of warning as far back as.1836, when he said: A power

has risen up in the Government greater than the people themselves,
consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined
into one mass and held together by a vest surplus in the banks".

I join with you in your condemnation of depertyizere, wherever
they are found. I think that the slogan for both parties in Ken-
tucky should be, “Down with the depertyizers", I cannot refrain
from contrasting the eloquent silence and the quiet dignity of the
men who has tested defeat at the hands of those who opposed him,
with the wordy exultation and noisy clamor of those who claim the
honor of his undoing, - R \

This hastily dictated letter, with—ell—e£—ets—de£eote, read
in connection with‘nhet I have already written, I think is a
sufficient explanation to meet your request, With the assurance
that I am writing as a lawyer and as thirman of the Party, in
the sincerest frame of mind, I must conclude. But in passing I

recall James Russell Levell‘on "What Mr. Robinson Thinks":

“Gineral C. is a areffle smart man:
He's hen on all sides thet give places or pelf;
But consistency still wuz a part of his plan-—
He's ben true to one party-~an' that is himself;
80 John P.
Robinson he
See he shall vote for Gineral 0.»

.very truly,








lst Prize Cock at Indianapolis, 1908; lst Cock Louisville, 1909.
a Grand bird both in show room anibreedigg pen. Photo from life.


Barred Plymouth Rock Specio J



W. R. KYLE ,

Exhibition and Breeding S "Ck“;

K E N T U C K Y ”2