Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-08-05
THE BOTTOM FACTS.
The Hoge Lucas Matter
JUDGE H0GB's VERSION RIGHT
Berkeley Delegates Speak

Mr.. John Barton Payne in a re-
cent statement published in the
Kingwood Argus referring to the
proposition made by him to Judge
Hoge, at the Fairmont convention,
says:
"From Judge Hoge's letter / see
that we agree as to the proposition
| made him; but he claims that his
friends almost unanimously objected
to it. Judge Charles J Faulkner,
Jr., Colonel w. T. Stewart, from
Martinsburg, and other of his
friends We're in the room and were
consulted by him. Judge Faulkner
was the leader OF the Berkeley dele
cation; all his warm friends and
supporters. | ask these gentlemen
to say whether or not nearly all his
friends objected to the proposition,
or if, in point eff fact, he was not
advised to accept it, and if be did
not return and say he had ac-
cepted it.
This seems to call for a statement
from the members of the Berkeley
delegation, and we desire to make
the following:
During a recess of the convention
for suppera number of Judge Hoge's
friends were in his room at the Con-
tinental Hotel. Mr.. John Z. Boyd,
a member of the delegation, stated
that he had been approached by 2.
IL. Strobe, Of Frederick county, Va,
and a friend OF Mr.. Lucas, who had
gone to Fairmont TO use his intlu-
ence in behalf of Mr.. Lucas with his
brother John L. Strobe, delegate
from Marion county and supporter
of Mr.. Lucas, with Il suggestion that
Mr.. Lucas would withdraw if HOg6
would agree not to be a candidate in
1882 against Mr., Lucas, and HOge's
friends would then support Lucas.
We were discussing the matter when
there was a knock at the door, and
Judge HOge was called out of the
room. He returned after some min
utes and stated that the proposal
referred to in our previous discussion
had been made III an authentic form
on behalf Of Mr.. Lucas. He further
stated that be had declined to act
upon it and would not do anything
further without the advice of his
friends. After as much discussion
as could be had in the brief time
allowed us, the decided and out
spoken counsel and advice of a large
majority Of those present was that
he decline the proposition. In this
advice Que or more gentlemen pres
ent declined to unite, upon the
ground that it was for Judge Hoge
to determine, personally, what his
own action might be as to his can
didacy in 1882. OF course the idea
of any pledge of his friends or Others
as to their course was not seriously
considered. On this statement of
our opinion he left the room, and
when he returned we were about
leaving for the convention at that
time reassembling. He simply stated
that Mr.. Lucas would withdraw, or
that his retirement had been arrang-
ed, or words to that effect. He did
not say that he had accepted the
proposal" or any proposal; nor did
he state what passed in the inter
view outside. Whatever he might
have intended to do he had no time
to make any explanation, as we i'm
4 mediately left for the convention.
WM. S. HENsHAW,
Chairman Berkeley Delegation.
Signed by
JOSEPH II. SHAFFER,
ARCHIBALD ODEN,
JAMES DUNN,
FRANK SILVER,
W. Il. LOGAN,
JOHN S. Bowers.
/ The undersigned members of the
delegation were not present in the
I room at the time, but neither heard
/ hor know of any bargain or proposal
being accepted by Judge Hoge.
DAVID VEIL,
PHILIP SHOWERS,
@. WELLINGER.
1t is proper to add that Captain
Colston and J. L. Boyd, Esq, whose
names do not appear above have not
signed the statement for the reason
that their recollection is not clear as
to all the details, but both these
gentlemen are delegates to tue Key
ser convention to be held next Fri
day, and both are Hoge men. Judge
Faulkner and w. I. Stewart, Esq.
have not signed for personal reasons,
but neither of them viii endorse any
statement which asserts that Judge
Hoge accepted Mr.. John Barton