The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-05-04
BROKEN PROMISES.
Strong Afidavits From Judge
Laubie's Friends.
Mckinley Distinctly Stated that He Would
Not Again be a Candidate But
Goes Back on His Word.
New Lisbon Buckeye state.)

MCKINNEY 1Or IOuTGu J6TIn W6I6 Uelu
set forth in gorgeous prOfusiOn by his
obscure, yet none the less enthusiastic
satellites, we mOdestly suggested that,
owing to a certain understanding be.
tween him and Judge Laubie, of which
we, in common with many mutual
friends of the two gentlemen, were cog
infant, Mr.. Mckinley could not, without
seriously rejecting upon his personal
honor and at the same time cOmprOmis-
ing that of his friends, become candi-
date at this time. We were Immediately
assailed by the self-cOnstituted bush
whackers, who it appears had drawn us
from under cover for the express pur-
pose, with vigorous demands for proof
of the alleged tprOmises. Proof not be-
ing in order, we declined, unless pub
licly denied by Mr.. Mckinley. Further
on, Cornelius Aultman, a neighbOr and
enthusiastic supporter of the fourth
teTmer, allowing his zeal to get the
better of his judgment, rushed into
print. in lengthy letter he assumes
the position of a much injured individ-
ual, and proceeds to detail his cOnnec-
tiOn with the canvass of 1880, matter
of no particular interest to anybody, eX-
cept that the circumstances admitted
fully cOrrOborate Judge Laubie's state
ments, inasmuch as they lead Mr.. Nc
Kinley up to the very brink of the
alleged promise. Mr.. Aultman's attempt
to raise question of veracity between
himself and Judge Laubie, and thus re-
lieve Mr.. Mckinley of the necessity of
an explanation, was very promptly and
decisiYely met by Judge Laubie, who, in
an open letter, places the responsibility
where it belongs by giving the circum-
stances leading to and attending his
interview with Mr.. Mckinley as fol-
lows:
Mr.. Aultman stopped me just as was
crossing the street to go to the pOstOtice,
and said he wanted to speak to me about
Congressional matters; that the bill re-
districting the State had finally passed,
and we were again together in the old
district, and that he wanted to see me to
know if was going to be candidate
against Mr.. Mckinley. | told him l had
thought of it; that my friends were urg-
ing me to allow my name to be used.
Mr.. Aultman then said he hoped would
not do so, that Mr.. Mckinley was en-
titled to second term in his original
district, having beaten the Democrats
in the gerrymandeTed district; that all
he wanted was another term in this dis
trict; that he would not ask any more,
and said he thought l ought not to run
against him. l then said to Mr.. Ault-
man that there was some force in his
claim that Mr.. Mckinley was entitled to
a second term in this district, and If it
waSltrue that that was all he wanted,
that he would not ask any more, l was
willing to cOncede it to him so far as l
was concerned, and asked Mr.. Aultman
if he was authorized by Mr.. Mckinley to
make this promise, and he said that he
was not as he had not talked with Nc
Kinley about it, but that he could assure
me that Mr.. Mckinley had put himself
in the hands of his friends to know
whether he ought to run then u8800
that they had brought him out and it
was too late to draw him back, and there
fore he felt sure that Mckinley would
not run again. l then said to him,
want to know that from Mckinley him
self. If he will make such promise,
will not run against him now, but
shall stand aside upon no other cOndi-
tion. If he wants to try and fasten him
self upon this district as permanent
Congressman, l will try conclusions
with him now and have it settled.
further said that if Mr.. Mckinley was
Garfield or a Blaine L would hesitate to
come out against him; but as he was
not, thought l would venture to do so,
and then 1 turned away and left Mr..
Aultman.
This was the sum and substance of the |
conversation between us, and every |
thing different and beyond this, as de- |
tailed in the letter by MIR. Aultman, is |
mere fiction.
Now knew, and so wrote Mr.. Ault- |
man some time ago. what he comedies
in this letter. that after that interview |
with me, he at once telegraphed to Mr.. |
Mckinley at Washington to come out |
here; that he went to meet Mckinley be-
fore he got to Salem, and told him of
our interview, and Mckinley stopped off
at Salem, (whyO while Mr.. Aultman
went on to Canton; and after Mr.. Nc
Kinley saw me, which he did not until
the next day, did stand out of his way !
in the Congressional race, and author
lied him to announce that l would not
be candidate for Congress then, (and
which he did at once publish throughout
this cOunty) and hence l have said that
Mr.. Aultman must either have known
or felt morally certain, that Mr.. Nc
Kinley made me that promise, and say
so still. Beyond this have never gone.
1 have never said to any one that Mr..
Aultman made me the promise. am
sorry that / am compelled to antagOniZe
Mr.. Aultman in this matter, as we have
always heretofore been friends, but 1
cannot refrain from asserting the truth
when so publicly attacked.
MIR. Aultman was not the only man
who approached me on this subject in
1880. Two months before Mr.. Aultman
came, some or the friends and supporters |
of Mr.. Mckinley in this (COlumbiana)
county had been urging me not to run
then against him, if we were put back
in our old district, and assuring me that
Mr.. Mckinley would not. and could not,
under the rules of the parry, run again,
and that my chances for 1882 would be
therefore, much better, especially as
there were many friends of Mr.. Nc
Kinley in Stark county who were also
my friends, and who would support me
if Mckinley was out of the way. And
1 felt perfectly satisfied that Mr.. Nc
Kinley did not intend to ask for any
more than second term in the district,
and would say so to me, as, in fact, he
did few days afterwards"
Concerning Mr.. Aultman's understand
ing and representations regarding Nc
candidacy in 1880, the editor of
the Alliance Review, in commenting
upon his letter. which contained posi-
IN - \