Prescott journal. [volume] (Prescott, Wis.) 1861-1871, 1869-10-15
SENATORIAL CONVENTION
Charges Of Frassd on the NOfrls
mating Ballot.
AnidavIts made showing Majority OF
Votes Cast for FL field.

The delegates of this Senatorial Dis
trict met at Hudson Oct. 9Th, for the
purpose of nominating candidate for
Stale Senator.
In the apportionment of the republi.
can senatorial committee. the counties In
the district were given the following rep.
resentalion: st. Croix, 81, Piorce, 10.
Polk 5, Douglas 2, Bayfield, !, Ashland
|, Barron l, Burnett /. Total 81. OF
this number, 20 supported Flfeld. viz:
Pierce 10, Polk 8, Burnett !, Ashland /.
There was two sets of credentials from
Ashland. but one set was so plainly bo-
gus they were cast aside and the commit
tee decided in favor of the Fifield Gre
dentials. The delegates of st. Croix,
Douglas, Bayfield, and Barron counties,
in all %, supported Mr. Comstock.
OF the nineteen delegates from Pierce
only nine attended the convention, and
they were empowered by resolution, to
cast the full vote of the delegation, upon
any and all questions arising in conven
ton. But during the se.s.anization of
the convention and upon every vote tax
en- throughout the entire proceedings,
excepting the balloting for senator
Pierce county had nine votes and no
more, and every attempt to obtain the
representation she WAS entitled to, was
thwarted by parliamentary claptrap, aud
the unwarrantable rulings of St. Gro TX
county chairman.
To be brief, we arrived 10 the informal
ballot for senator, having thus far been
allowed but twelve votes 10 the eonven
ton, and upon that ballot, the full vote
Of the delegates was cast for the first
time. The result of the ballot was,
FItield 26, Comstock %, blank 2. AT
this stage of the proceedings a motion
ought to have been made, TO declare s.
S. Fifield IT.. the unanimous nominee
Blu, it was neglected and the golden mo
ment passed. The motion would of
course, have boon voted down, but it
would have al ed anothe, proof that the
twelve delegates present casting twenty
six votes were supporting Fif-ld, and no
other man.
The motion for formal ballot pre-
ysi'ing, it was taken and the result an
nounced, WAS Comstock &c, Ffield 25.
Il was instantly moved that the pomna
tioL of Mr.. Comstock be made unani
nous. Believing that mistake had &C
Cured, or wrong committed, Mr.. White
moved reformal ballot as an amend
ment. This was promptly voted down,
and amid great confusion a motion to
adjourn VAS made and carried. In such
haste was this done, the chairman did
not even declare the nomination Of Mr..
Comstock to the convention, nor appoint
q senatorial committee for another term.
THUS ended the convention.
1t was openly asserted, by the friends
of Mr.. Comstock, after convention
that member of the Pierce county
delegation sold his vote. but so vsri-
Gus were tie opinions. as to the person,
that nesrly every delegate was accused rs
bsing tie man who received the bribe
These charges we believe to be false.
They were only made to lead the minds
Of outsiders away from the true modus
operandi by which that vote was chang
ed.
1t is certain that the majority of
the delegates went into convention TO sup
port s. s. Field Jr. They gave him
majority of votes in that convention as
their affilavi's show, they cast their 20
votes for Flfeld at the meeting recorded
elsewhere, and were they assembled to
gether to day, We believe they would bal
Let in like manner. But, by some
means, now unknown, the ballot was
tempered with and the result changed.
The action of the St. Croix delegates
is alone enough to prove that all was not
done honestly, fairly and above board
Was it fair to ignore the upper assembly
district entirely in the appointment of a
committee on credentials7 Was the at
tempt to secure the vote of Ashland on
bogus credentials honestl If they Sc
cured that vote the field was won. But
the msnner in which they tried to do it
wss fraud. We have further proof of
this, and will give it, if the above fact is
disputed. 1t is fixed fact that the vote
was changed in some way. That mpn
was bribed cannot be proved. That
mistake was made is improbable. That
fraud was committed, is not ONLY posi-
ble, but highly probable. We have
shown that it was attempted once, but
failed. We have, therefore, good reason
"a