Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1882-09-28
Mr.. Chambers Letter,

The Republican Sentinel of the 2lst
says: 1--WE published yesterday a letter
from MIR. w. I'll. Chandler, one of the
delegates from Dane county TO the
Monroe Convention, in which he sought
to make the point that Mr.. Sticknev
acted dishonorably in voting for Mr..
Orion, a Hazelton man. for temporary
chairman of the Convention. Mr..
Chandler says that there was a confer
ence held of the delegates opposed to
fractions nomination the morning be-
fore the convention. 1t was composed
OF the fourteen delegates from Dane.
including Stickney, who were for Keves,
and six delegates from Green, who were
anti azelton, but not committed to any
candidate. At this conference il was
resolved to act together to secure the
temporary organization. The West As
sembly District of Lafayette being eX-
Guided from representation until the
ease of the contesting delegates from it
could be settled there would be left in
the Convention twenty Hazelton dele
gates. fourteen Keyes delegates. and six
anti-l1azelton delegates. BY this ar
.rangement it was expected to lie the
the Convention. 1T was foreseen,''
says Mr. Chandler, "that a deadlock
was certain and that was lust what
Was desired" There was no danger
or probability. :" continues Mr.. Chandler
''of the nomination OF Mr.. Keyes.'a
The efforts of those opposed to the
nomination of Mr.. Hazelton were direct
ed to obtaining such a control of the
situation as to enable them to prevent
his nomination, and secure considera-
ton Of candidates that would command
the united support of all Republicans in
the district" Thus, by the confession
OF Mr.. Chandler. the scheme was to
make such a use of the bogus delegation
coming from the West Assembly Dis
trict of Lafayette as would enable the
twenty anti-Hazelton delegates to main
tain a deadlock, and prevent the or
gauiZation of the Convention at Monroe
until the delegates elected in favor of
HazeltOn's nomination should be forced
to Withdraw his name and compromise
by supporting q new man. Now the
proceedings at Darlington on which a
p%retence to contesting the seats of three
Hazelton delegates was founded, as far
as any statements show vet made in the
regard to the facts, whether bv the
friends OF Hazelton or the friends of
heyes, were a Scurvy trick and vet it
was proposed to profit by that trick and
to defeat the will of the majority Of the
regularly selected delegates, to compel
the withdrawal of Hazelton. and to en-
able the minority ito obtain such a
control Of the situation as would place
It in their power to dictate the choice Of
a candidate. Such was the strategy
which was defeated by Stickney's vote.
He may have done wrong in not protest.
ING against it in the conference where il
was agreed upon. We have not heard
his side of the story and he may acquit
himself as best he may of the charge OF
Inconsistency. But the vote he rave by
which this scheme Of the minority to de-
feat the majority was thwarted was a
vote on the side of honesty and a fair
dealing.
The question, however, which Mr..
Chambers letter brings into promin-
ence, and of which he furnishes no elu-
cidation, is. upon what ground the nine
teen delegates who seeded from the
regular convention and nominated Mr..
MY % Gun justify tIlelf action! 1heN
maintain that they are not boilers, and
pretend to regard Mr.. Reyes as the regu-
lar nominee. And vet Mr.. Chandler
acknowledges that Mr.. Keyes never had
anything like a majority in the Conven-
ton, and that there was no danger of
his nomination, even if Stickney had
voted from first to last On all questions
with the Reyes delegates. This admis-
sion gives Reyes whole case away.