The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-05-25

reason to complain because it
left the field uncomplicated, and
gave to them fair chance of testing
the comparative strength of their can
didate, and Major Mckinley. Laubie's
friends did not complain then, nor do
they complain now. And Major McKin-
ley having Teaped what advantage he
could from that agreement, should be
ashamed to complain of its consequence
es now.
But, Messrs. Editors, was the agree
ment made as claimed by Laubie's
friends? As | have already said, it is ad-
mitted that Judge Laubie was talked of
as candidate. That up to March 1880,
he had neither consented nor declined to
become a candidate. That Major Nc
Kinley desired him to remain out of that
race; that in order to induce him to do
so, he (McKinley) sought and held an in
terYieW with Judge Laubie, and
that by reason of that interview Laubie
declined to permit his name to be used
in that canvass. Now does any sane
man believe that Laubie withdrew from
that race simply because Mckinley told
him to, without having received any
promise or assurance whatever? Would
not the circumstances surrounding the
parties at the time the agreement Is al
legged to have been made, be sufficient
the question of yeracity between Laubie
and Mckinley? But in addition to the
statement of Judge Laubie. supported as
it is by all the circumstances, we have
the sworn afIidaYits of nearly dozen
prominent and influential citizens of
COlumbiana county, to the effect that
Mckinley not only admitted the making
of the agreement, but used its existence
as an argument to induce them to sup
port him in that campaign. | do not
hesitate to say that criminals have been
hurried into eternity, dangling at the
end Of a rope, on less convincing teStl-
mOny than has been produced to show
the existence of the agreement claimed
by Judge Laubie and his friends.
deny that Major Mckinley has in "a
straightforward and manly manner" de-
MED the agreement. In his letter to
Laubie dated March Z, but two facts per-
tinent to the issue are stated. The first
is, 81 never expressly or by implication
promised you would not be candidate
for Congress in 1882" The second Is, Il
made no promise myself and authorized
no person to make promise for me
which could or would prevent free ac-
tiOn upon my part to consent to can
didacy for Congress in 1882" All the
balance or that letter is either foreign
to the question at issue between its
writer and Judge Laubie, or is purely
argumental. What is there in either of
the statements above quOt-d d that may
not be recOnciled with the affidavit of
DR.. Frank 2. Moore? Moore swears as
follows: major Mckinley went from
New Lisbon to Salem the next morning
and returned in the evening, when he
told me that he had succeeded in getting
the Judge not to be candidate, that he
had told the Judge that all he wanted
was a second term, in this, his original
District, and that if the Judge would
not run against him then, he would not
run against the Judge in 1882. | said
to Major Mckinley, when he told me
this, that he could not afford to make
that promise to Judge Laubie, as he
would want to go to Congress again i'll
1882 as bad as he did then. He said to
me, oh! that Will be all right the State
will be re-districted by that time and
we will not be in the same district
In this letter of McKinley's occurs this
remarkable sentence: II could not fore
shadow the sentiment of my cOnstitu-
ents or forecast the constituency in
whose District an act of the Legislature
might place me-" This sentence was
evidently intended as piece of bun
cOmbe, with which to catch the guile
less voter. But it fortunately serves a
much better purpose than was intended
by its author. 1t strongly cOrrObOrateS
that part of DR.. MOOre's affidavit above
quoted. The entire letter Of Major Nc
Kinley, if carefully analysed, will be
found to contain no direct denial of the
claimed by Laubie and his
friends; but on the contrary, it is a cum
ningly devised and aTtfully executed
evasion of the whole question. In at
tempting to explain the unhappy posi-
tiOn in which Mckinley now finds him
self, you state in substance that you
think the contract made was, that Lau-
bic and his friends should support Nc
Kinley for Congress, and in return Nc
Kinley and his friends would support
Laubie for Judge. Why, Messrs. EditO. s.
do you really see the wickedness in the
fact that two gentlemen exchange
promises in reference to an Office two
years in the future, and are you yet un-
able to discover the slightest taint of
wrong in the same kind Of bargain if
it is only to be executed the same year
it is made? The agreement was made,
as claimed by Judge Laubie's friends.
The whole people of the District have
the evidence before them. If it was a
or corrupt agreement,
neither of the parties to it should be-
come the candidate of the Republican
party. You have argued that it was
both corrupt and dfshOnorable. 1 do
not think that you really believe that it
was either. You and other friends of
Major Mckinley know that this agree
ment contained no element of cOrrup-
ton and your insinceTe pretense that it
1Oes, is made for the purpose of injuTing
Judge Laubie, and in the vain hope of
helping Major Mckinley. The foolish
of Major McKinley's friends
IN reference to the character of the
agreement has helped nobody but the
Democrats, and will serve only to injure
the Republican party.
Your long editorial, in which you es-
pOuse the cause of Mckinley, is a sub
stantial admission of the existence of
this agreement. In your attempt to
reconcile the conflicting statements of
the parties, the only plausible argument
advanced by you, is that Major McKin-
ley meant that he would do what he
could to assist Laubie in securing a re-
nomination to the Judgeship. All the
answer that is necessary to show the
falsity of this shrewd and plausible pre-
text is this: Judge Laubie had absO-
lutely no opposition in that contest. No
name other than his had been mention
ed or thought of. He had, to- use a slang
phrase, ''a walk away" He needed to
make no pledges or promises to anybody;
le was, so far as is known, the unani-
nous choice of the Republicans of his
I'D. =.