Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-08-25
aMR MIuNKfNS CASE"

| ing, in which it discussed the nomlna-
ton of Mr.. McJun at the Mercer
Congressional Conference. The Jour
nal has generally been digniied and
fair in its treatment Of the Congress
sional trouble in this district, aud
hence we will again endeavor to an
swer its position. 1t gives a state
ment of Mr.. McJunkin's case as
gathered from this paper. We omit un-
nessary words. the following being the
substance of its statement:
"The Butler CITIZEN of last week
contains what is probably as strong a
statement of bis (Mr McJunkin's)
case as can be made. In brief it is
this Mr.. McJunkin was nominated at
Mercer by his and the conferees Of Mr..
Roberts of Crawford county. Mr..
Miller of Mercer refused to 60 into that
conference. By so refusing he Miller
disfranchsed himself and his county.
Mr.. McJunkin was therefore the only
candidate entitled to set in the said
conference. He recognized the Craw-
ford conferees of Doctor Roberts, thus
decided the contest in Crawford, and
the nomination of Mr.. McJunkin fol-
lowed, ETC."
The journal then proceeds to an
swer the above statement. But itshould
have stated it more fully. A very
important part is omitted, to wit /:
how the Mercer conference come to be
called and held Had it stated that it
was held by and in pursuance of the
agreement made between Miller and Nc
Junkin, in which each recognized the
other as the nominee of their respec-
tive counties, and also at the same time
recognized the known fact that Craw-
ford county was divided, with two
| claimants as the nominee of that
county, and that Messrs. Miller and
McJunkin had served notice on both
of said claimants, Dick and Roberts,
to appear, and that in obedience to said
notice, or invitation, both did appear
at Mercer at the time, then, we say,
it, the Journal would have stated the
case more fully and fairly.
But waving this. The Journal pro-
ceeds to justify Mr. Miller's course in
| refusing to enter the conference he
himself had been so important part
in calling And it's ground, or argu-
ment, is just what Mr.. Miller himself
repudiates and denies Tie Journal
says his refusal was because of con-
test in Butler county, in which "Mr.
McJ cJunkin's right to representation in
| the Mercer conference was contested y
This is keeping Mr.. Miller In false
position. We will do the justice to
say, that at no time, neither in Butler,
June 26th, when the Mercer conference
was arranged for, nor at it in Mercer,
July 9Th, did he ever offend the Butler
conferees by any allusion to trouble
| in Butler county. He knew, if the
Journal did not, that our trouble here
was closed, settled by the action Of
our County Convention Of Return
Judges at the time they first met, May
81. He therefore fully recognized Mr..
| Mel Junkin as the nominee of this
county and arranged with him for the
conference His mistake was in not
carrying out that agreement. And
the Journal must knoU that his rea-
son for not doing 80 was because Of the
contest in it's own county Of Crawford.
This was where his difficulty was, ac-
cording to his own actsand words, what
ever his motives may have been. lie
| informed the Butler conferees on their
arrival at Mercer that he had so far
changed his mind as to be of opinion
| that the Dick conferees from Crawford
were entitled to seats in the Confer
ence at It's organization. And the
rest is known. We need not repeat.
Had Dick been thus admitted, all
would have been right with the Jour
nal. So unfair a proceeding, we are
proud to say, was defeated by the But
/
Icr confcrecs. There vas no letter
from the Chairman Of our County
Committee sent TO the Mercer confer
ence, as the journal still seems to
think. That letter was but from q sim
gle member Of the Committee. Our
Chairman never did and never would
have sent such letter. And the
Journals admission that an adjourn-
ment was asked for in order to give q
defeated and sore-headed candidate
here time to cook up case Of contest,
only makes its position the worse.
Its ground being wrong, its conclu-
sions are therefore wrong.
And this also settles the question
as to the alleged adjournment, or
Greenville meeting, Of Dick and Miller
conferees. How could the Butler con-
ferees participate in any meeting ar
ranged by or in which Dick was
party to arranging? Considering the
agreement made with Mr.. Miller, and
the nomination made at Mercer, and
the rejection there Of Dicks demands,
how could any subsequent meeting he
shared in calling been attended by any
county without thus recognizing him 7
But this il what Mr. Miller did and is
tho 0reot mistake he now haa rcnenf