The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-11-02
WHY MCKINLEY WAS DEFEATED.

The defeat of Major Mckinley Is one
of the most unfortunate features of the
late upheaYal. He was not only good
Congressman, hut a leader. He had
achieved a position of great influence
and wide usefulness. He was tariff
champion. able and hard-wOrking. But
his defeat bears with it a lesson that
should be heeded-a lesson that has
been taught in more than one Congress
honest in politics as in private affairs.
In all his political career Mr.. Mckinley
has never but once been accused OF dis
honorable act. His professions and
practices have always accorded. He has
had the fond confidence of his cOnstitu-
enGs to an extent rarely equalled. But
the one mis-step proved the fatal one.
One error, committed either maliciOuSly
OF careleSsly proved his ruin.
Two years a; % Mr.. Mckinley was hard
pressed for the nomination. Mr.. Wood
WORTH former Congressman, of Ma
hOning, and Mr.. Mckinley. were the
contestants, with their forces nearly
equally divided. With the contest left
to these two, Mr.. Mckinley would have
proved the winner, but a new danger
arose. Judge Lauhie, popular man of
COlumbiana, threatened to come into
the field, with his county practically
Laubie's nomination as a compromise
candidate, or combination between
Laubie and WOOdwOrth for the defeat of
Mckinley. Suddenly it was announced
that Mr.. Laubie would not enter the
race; that he was supporting Mckinley,
and thus the contest was ended i'll Nc
Kmley'S denomination and election.
1t was understood among politicians
that Mckinley had got Laubie out of his
81 ~ g
in 1882. And when the canvass OF this
year approached, Laubie became a can
didate, and charged Mckinley with
treachery in being candidate contrary
| to his promise. Statements and counter
| statements, afliTmatlOnS and denials
| followed in prOfusiOn. Laubie support
ed his claim with affidavits of several
| persons who were Indirectly witnesses
to the alleged bargain. McKinley's de-
| fense consisted mainly OF his own de-
NAL, supported by that of Mr.. Cornelius
Aultman, who Laubie had claimed was
| a go-between the principals to the COM
pact. Some people believed that Laubie
had set up a false claim, in hope to force
| his Way over KcKinley'S popularity.
Many believed that Mckinley had really
| made the bargain and broken it when
the hour of fulfllment came. Others,
and perhaps larger share of the COM
munity, believed that Mckinley had
held out to Laubie a strong probability
that he (McKinley) would be out of mis-
way in 1882, and that the terms of the
overture being indefinite, Laubie had,
perhaps honestly, construed it into a
promise, and acted accordingly. The
actual facts will probably never be
known. But it is certain that it was an
unfortunate matter for both men, since
Mr.. Laubie has put himself into posi-
ton where his political advancement is
impOssi ble, and Mr.. Mckinley has been
defeated by the influence of the charges
upon voters.
Mckinley was again renOminated,
after desperate struggle, but in the
election the Laubie men of COlumbiana
were against him, and that noble old
Republican county, that gave Garfield
nearly 2,3O0 majority, and Townsend
this year over 1,2UO, gave Wallace, Me
Kinley'S opponent, Il majority of 40.
If Major Mckinley made a bargain
with Laubie, and broke il, he deserves
iefeat. But If he waslmaligned and lied
about, and the malicious lies cOmpassed
his overthrow, Mr.. Laubie has a heavy
responsibility to bear.
The lesson of it all is that there is too
much manipulation in our politics.; too
much bargaining away of chances and
| prospects; too much trading of pOpulari-
| W, and not enough respect for and re-
lance upon the will of the party
Akron Daily News, 2lst.