Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-10-06
STATE SENATE SITUATION.

The cOnfereeS OF this Senatorlal dlS-
trict, Armstrong and Butler counties,
re-assembled at the Seventh Avenue
Hotel in Pittsburgh On Friday last.
1t seems they came together again at
the instance of the Chairman of the
State Central Committee, Mr.. Cessna.
1t further appears that Mr.. Cessna had
named, or suggested, Mr.. II. ii. By
ram Of Pittsburgh, to act as umpire in
case the conferees of the two counties
failed to agree. A meeting of the con-
ferees was had and discussion took
place as to the rights of the counties
to the candidate, ETC., but no ballot was
taken on Friday, as far as we can
learn. An adjournment was then made
to Saturday, the next day. On Satur-
day ballot was taken, resulting in
three votes for each candidate, Mr..
Meredith, of Armstrong, and Mr.. Greer,
of this county. Then, it is alleged by
the friends of Mr.. Greer that another
adjournment aoithom day took place
This point is not stated by Mr.. Mere
dith. However, it seems that the con-
ferees were reassembled, during Sat
urday, at the instance of Mr.. Byram,
who at this point claimed right to
be present and vote as the arbiter or
umpire appointed by Mr.. Cessna. Mr..
Meredith informs us personally that
his conferees did not recognize the
right of Mr. Byram to interfere and
did not invite him to the meeting but
refused to join in an invitation to him,
and that when he, Mr.. Byram, ap-
peared in the meeting they objected to
his presence there, denying his author
ity in the premises. On the part Of
Mr.. Greer it is claimed that Mr.. Mere
dith's conferees did recognize the right
of Mr.. Byram to be in the meeting.
This is material point on the ques-
tion as to whether a nomination was
fairly made, or made at all But bal.
lot it appears was taken, resulting in
each county's conferees voting for their
own candidate, three and three, and
then Mr.. Byram claimed a right to
vote and did vote in favor Of Mr.
Greer. Mr.. Meredith's conferees, be
informs US, refused to ratify this pro.
ceeding, and the conference adjourned
without the said proceeding being ratifi
ed by the conferees of Armstrong
county.
The above is about the statement oi
both parties as near as we can ascer-
tain them. Mr.. Greer claims he is nom
mated, and Mr.. Meredith on the other
hand says that neither he or his con-
ferees consented to that mode Of max
ing the nomination The fact that they
refused to ratify it would seem to con
firm the statement of Mr. Meredith
He telegraphed here on Saturday that
he gave no such consent and on Mon
day last was here saying the same
AS at present advised we are unable
to say that a nomination has been
made, but presume we Will soon have
further light on the subject.
We have heretofore referred to the
danger Of what looks to be new prac.
tice, the interference of tie State Com.
mittee in the local politics of the coun-
ties or districts OF the State This
wear is the first in this State In which
disposition has been manifested by
the State Committee to do so, and its
evil effects will likely follow. Just SC
soon as this mode of settling contests
for nominations is recognized, then
every candidate, in every district, will
so shape his course as to secure the
favor Of the Chairman of the State
Committee. Although his county may
not be entitled to the candidate, yet he
will hold on and hold out i'm the hope
of the State Committee or its Chair
man deciding i'm his favor. There will
be no longer an effort made by candi-
dates to settle matters among them
selves at home on the old and honest
basis of "fair play and time about"
On the contrary, if knowing be or his
county has not the right to district
nomination, he will instruct his con-