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

Dauh JOuI todI Ou your mask; we are
pledged to support Mckinley; the peO-
pie are laughing at u.s." As a result of
this visit, appeared in the News" of
May o, that singular discharge of mean
ingless diarrhOea of words, without sense
or syntaX, supposed to be the Joint pro-
ductiOn of the syndicate.
The young man aforesaid still
breathes. He has lived through the
crushing comments and criticisms of
his former letter. He survives in spite
of the scurrillous article which appear
ed in the Cleveland Leader April 80, and
which was written by another tool of
the W. C. aforesaid. He still exists after
vainly endeavoring to fathOm the in
comprehensive depths of that terrific
dOVetailing of words in which the n. o.
g. seeks to aVOw his preference for Nc
Kinley. The young man prepared for
publication an answer to the miracu-
lOus article aforesaid. The Mr. syndicate
with natural terror in their hearts
which imbues all towards, refused to
publish 1T, and it's admission to your
columns is respectfully requested, to-
gether with this preface, which is sue
clnct and truthful history of the reasons
which prompt the Mr.. to howl for Nc
Kinley and attempt to belittle those
who have sufficient sense to re fuse to be
led by them.
MANUSChlPI THAT The NEWS-REGlSIER
REFUSED TO PUBLISH.
EDITORS NEws-REGIsTER:-B reason
of certain circumstances with which
you and l are familiar, and in which the
public is not interested, no answer to
your comments and criticisms upon my
former article has been published.
A personal wrangle between you and
me could result in no advantage or gain
to either of us, and would probably be
nauseating, rather than interesting, to
your readers. My former article was
written in the belief that the News. Reg
lister has been for many months, and
was then faVOring the denomination Of
Major Mckinley. That impression you
have stated to me, was mistaken one;
and since that article and the criticisms
upon it have been published, the claim
has been made in the columns of your pa
per that you were maintaining neutral
| ity as between the two rival candidates
| for nomination. While occupying this
alleged neutral ground, you were unfair
enough to say, that to request Major Nc
| Kinley to come out in a manly and
straightforward denial of the agree
ment alleged to have been made be-
| tween Judge Laubie and himself, was
SILLY" Within a few days from the
| time you wrote that statement, Major
Mckinley himself came from Washing
ton to Ohio for the express purpose of
securing the publication of a cores
pOndence in which you say he denies in
a manly and straightforward manner,
the existence of that agreement. This
action on the part of Major Mckinley
would seem to indicate one of two
things, either you were mistaken in the
| estimate of the character of the request,
or Major Mckinley has done very fool
ish thing, by complying with a request
fbaf ruoo GsGillU'f and has ffORannipI hil
time to no purpose" in denying the
statements of Judge Laubie and his
| friends.
But, Messrs. Editors, now that you
| have discarded all claims to neutrality
| in this contest, and have in three col
umn editorial avOwed your preference
| for Major Mckinley, desire, with your
kind permission, to call the attention of
your readers to few of the many mis-
statements and Inconsistencies contain
| ed in that editorial. observe that in
speaking of the alleged agreement be-
! tween the candidates, you continually
use the words buying and selling. am
| therefore led to the conclusion that you
wish your readers to understand that
the agreement, if made, was disreputa-
BILE and hishOnOrable. In the eXuber-
ance of my innocence l have believed,
and vet believe, that snch an agreement
as is set up by Judge Laubie and his
| friends contains no element of disrepute
or dishOnOT. l am innocent enough to
believe that in most other cases, the dis
honor lies not in the making but in the
breaking of the agreement.
The circumstances surrounding the
parties at the time the agreement Is
| claimed to have been made, are well
| known to hundreds of citizens in this
| Congressional district. AIr. WOOdwOrth
and Mr.. Mckinley were ayowed candl-
! dates for the Congressional nomination,
| The primaries for COlumbiana county
| had been set at an early date; the sup
pOrterS of Mckinley felt sure they could
| secure a majority of the delegates from
| that county if the fight was left between
| Mckinley and Woodwork. The friends
| of Mr.. Woodwork were equally conf
dent that they could secure majority
of the delegates from that county if the
| fight was not complicated by the appear
ance of third candidate. Hundreds of
| Judge Laubie'S friends were urging him
! to become a candidate. OF those who
were anxious to have Judge Laubie con-
! sent to become candidate, l must men,
tiOn in this county, Col. James n. Nash,
II. B. Shields, James B. Drake, John s,
Roller, Hon. j. r. Johnston, Judge g.
Van Hyning, Gen. T. W. SandeTsOn, w.
S. Anderson, and many others. This
fact was generally known throughout
when he says he did not know it, either
lies, or is the most stupidity ignorant
man in this district.
While this condition of affairs existed
Major Mckinley came from Washington
to look after his canvass. He went to
see Judge Laubie. His object was to in
duce Judge Laubie to remain out of the
canvass. AT that interview between
Mckinley and Laubie, it was claimed
that Mckinley said In substance to Lau-
bic: 81 am certainly entitled by the
customs of the party, to two terms in
my original District. 1 shall not ask
more than this. If you will stay out of
my way now, will not be a candidate
against you in 1882, and your chances
will certainly be better then than they
can be nOw." Judge Laubie aceedeed
to this request. He remained out of that
canvass, and he sacrificed what his
friends then thought a fair chance to
| secure the Republican nomination. NC
| Kinley attempted to sell nothing, Lau-
bic attemptedftt ITO buy nothing. Lauble
simply stayed out of political fght,and