West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1882-07-21

tbc All mont OOURlt hSlOuhl tIfdu re-
rDeut of 1880 AZ Published in our last
ssue over the signatures OF j. B
Hoge and j Barton Payne, We pro-
'pose to lay before our readers tie
conclusions which we have drawn
from these communications, and for
greater clearpess and precision, we
will divide our remarks into nun
bered paragraphs.
l. It is a conceded fact tibet wheb
the Fairmont Convention took a
short recess for supper, the mex: bal.
lot, # no new aspect was given TO tue
contest, would result IN the nomiua-
tion Of Hon. B. F. Martin. 1t there.
upon became expedlent for Hoge and
Lucas, il they desired to prevent
that result, to have such an under
standing among their respective sup.
poIters as would defeat Martin and
secure the nomination OF either Hoge
or Lucas. Their combined vote was
sufficient for that purpose, aud l.
only remained TO determine to " hlch
Of the two contestants the benefit
Of that joint vote should be given,
and upon what terms that alliance
was to be arranged.
2. John Barton Payne, an original
friend Of Lucas, and with hieudly
feelings towards bis rival, called
Judge Hoge from his room, and sub.
mitted to him the plain and distiact
proposition, That if he woul not be
a candidate for denomination for
Congress from this District, two
years from that time (n the event
that Mr.. Lucas should be candi-
date), that, the friends OF Lucas,
would vote for him and give him the
nomination"
8. HoRe'. dignity was in no wise
shaken by the terms, bat suspending
his decision for a few moments, he
returned to his room and commune
Gated Payne's proposition to such OF
his friends as were there embed,
and asked their opinion as to the ex
pedien"y Of its acceptance. Upon
bis return hom his room, the inter
view was brief, and Payne says, that
he promptly and unqlaIi6edly ac-
copied his proposition, Nov what
dces Judge Hoge say? Does be deny
this ? Does be say that he rejected
Payne's proposition ? He does not.
He says, 81 returned to Mr.. Payne
and stated that such a proposition
Involved question Of principle
that no one had right TO determine
a question Of nomination which be-
IoDged only to convention" with a
variety OF other general trumped- up
plStitu1os that no one would have
ever dleamt or thought of in such
hurried political crisis. His reply
could easily have been aye or nay,
but he pictures himself i'll his letter
IN the attitude OF the modest maiden,
"N no, swearing she would never
consent, consented > for he admits,
IN his Monroe letter, that he return.
ed from that interview, and an
nounced to his friends that Lucas
would retire; that the friends oil
Lucas would now support him, and |
that .he retirement Of Lucas had |
been "arranged."
4. Judge Hoge in sophistical ef-
fort to make some excuse for his
present conduct, says his friends
were almost unanimously" opposed |
TO Payne's proposition. This we
have every reason TO believe, is not
true. Mr.. Sprigg did object to the
arrangement. AS to the other per.
sons in the room, our information is
reliable, that some were silent. 9th |
eIs ssid it was personal matter f7r |
him TO determine upon his own re-
possibility. and others again ed- |
yised an acceptance. These facis !
We are credIb'y informed, will be !
SUSTAINED by every gentleman in be |
room with the exception OF Mr. /
Sprirg' Let them be Intercepted. !
Except as it bears upon the yeracity !
Of Judge Hoge, it is a very uuim
portsnt inquiry in this controversy.
what biz friends advised bin TO do
on that occasion. The question is,
not what bis friends ADVISED, bot
what Hoge did Psyne's interview
wss with Judge Hoge, privately
aud 10 person, lot with his friends
j. Judge Hoge, alter consulting bis
:uebdg, acted ss if he had their ap-
prove, when in fact he mad not. al,
that need be said cd that subject .p.
that be deceived The friend OF Lucas.
and insuitel his own supporters
r. T.J.. IT,. ~. ia