OCR Text |
Show RepublicanCommitteeDeniesReport SupDort Was Pledged to Candidate Considerable confusion and misunderstanding has developed in Iron county as the result of an agreement reached between Washington and Iron county Re-publican Re-publican leaders regarding the party candidate for the State Senator from the 11th Senatorial district. As a result, members of the Iron County Republican committee com-mittee have emphatically denied some of the reports of their action. ac-tion. There has been a "gentleman's agreement" between the party leaders of the two counties since Washington and Iron counties were established as one senatorial senator-ial district, that representation in the state senate from this dis-trict dis-trict would alternate between the two counties. In keeping with this "gentleman's "gentle-man's agreement" Iron county leaders early this year again agreed to continue the policy and permit Washington county to name the candidate for the office. The decision was reached at a meeting between committees commit-tees from the two counties. Following the meeting an an-nouncement an-nouncement was made to the effect ef-fect that Iron county would support sup-port a Washington county man for the position this year since the office is now held by an Iron county man. Immediately following the meeting announcement announce-ment was made that Orville Ha-fen, Ha-fen, St George attorney, would be a candidate for the office, and a statement of withdrawal from the race was made by another an-other St, George Man, Gordon Clark, who until that time had been a candidate for the office. Clark's withdrawal was made "In the Interest of party harmony." har-mony." This action led to the assumption that the committees from the two counties had not only decided that the nominee would .be a Washington county man, but that they had decided on who the nominee would be. Members of the committee from Iron county emphatically deny that any such action was taken. They state that it definitely def-initely understood that the Iron county representation recognized the agreement that had been in effect, and that the county committee com-mittee would support a Washington Wash-ington county candidate and would not seek to place an Iron county man in the race for the nomination or give committee support to any Iron county candidate, can-didate, but that it would not attempt at-tempt to select a candidate, or pledge support to any individual for the nomination. "There was absolutely no consideration con-sideration given to the question of selecting a candidate," one of the committee members stated this week, "and there most certainly cer-tainly was no direct or Implied pledge to support or designate any candidate for the position. We merely agreed that it was Washington county's turn for the office and that the committee would do nothing to interfere with this agreement." Many local people have felt that the action at least implied that the party organization was backing Mr. Hafen for the nomination nom-ination and thus opposing the candidacy of another individual This, the committee members maintain, is an absolutely erroneous erron-eous assumption .and that no such action was even discussed at the meeting. "The party nomination will be made in accordance with the election laws of Utah," one member mem-ber of the committee stated, "and no attempt has been made or will be made to keep any candidate from filing for the nomination." |