Thomas County cat. [volume] (Colby, Kan.) 1885-1891, 1885-11-12

Ed. CAr.-Ny CAT for October % failed to
put in IN appearance, hence l did not sct
your criticism on 'Cauc.i is in it, nor have (.
chance to answer tie Grc.t:t IFS PROFOUND
cd. And am indebted TO neighbor fer call
ing INV attention TO them altho. .gl too late fol
last wceK's issue. In reply would say, think
from your question and ,..narks that you
must be laboring under the impression that
it is only the people of Quickville Il mi vicini
ty who were interested Ill the caucus. he,
lear this place. Ii sucn is the case you III.
very much mistaken. The facts are that peO
pie in all three commissioner districts were
notified of the meeting AZ TAR H. possible
and asked to be present, or send representa-
tives, and the ticket made up ut the CAUCUS
WAS from candidates named by men who
claimed TO represent the several districts
And if you will notice, ! think you will ind
only three on the ticket from this district
aside from tho commissioners. No great mo-
nopoIy, nor Quickville combination tn us fur !
am sure. Now i'll regard to your questions.
some Of them do not feel at libe rty to an
sHor rs they would require me to 20 into per-
sonalities that wOul BIO out of place ut this
time. but with reference to your first, / will
say this, that as far rs cut leurn MIR. Porter
was cordially supported ut the convention in
Solby by nearly every one from this district.
The Quickyille convention ,aA you Gull it,
was called not particularly In the interests Of
any one, but Tor the purpose OF calling TO-
gather as many legal voter, rs possible and to
see whether they were in favor OF allowing
all the county Offices to he filed by residents
OF the town of Colby OK whether they sh~uld
= * for a fair proportion Of them according
to population.
, the convention did support Mr.. P6s>ell
almost unanimously. owing to the fact of his
bSing an old settler. popular mxn and be-
sides Mr.. Kingery was not present nor did he
have any one t. represent him.
Ny language WAS when by the rulings Of
the convention il was agreed to let every
body VOTE" II you can construe that into An
assertion that = ruling was passed to that Of
!ect, we will call it mistake. You win hard
deny that MI did vote who wanted 70. !
was not present until some time after voting
had began. but was informed that such q
ruling had been made.
fail to sec the point in your 9th question.
ject OF the convention.
toiuA u Ituk COuio W AOA 0sO0 - UutCAs
vile. or outside of Colby, but % fur ~ heard
from we think Colby just . little ahead.
Were it not for intruding 700 much on your
space l would say word with regard to tho
ticket placed in n omination at Colby, which
Is that 50 far - Am acquainted. IL 10 unex-
,optaonsble. 50 far "a I am personally concern
ID could give them all . cordial support.
And We wish you. and them to distinctly un-
that il IL not the candidates, No OBJ /.
ect to DO much a It is the manner In which |,
hey were placed In nomination.
We think the parties who engineered TIE |
,onvention might have devised . plan by !
ghfch each voting precinct would have had Q !
Toioe ip the eon> ntion, proportion 60 the .
,robahae legal vote tney could pol on the 18th !
II November. and We think II would have |
'eeD no moro than justice 70 tho sestlars out
ID az Colby to have boon notified Of time.
nd called on to elect delegates. to meet In
1t would certainly have given IN
portunity to have met and discussed the
merits a the several candidates. without DO
NJ liable % to charge Of farminx rings for
be sole purpose at downing Colby. n then
utstde voters weGid hsve had no cause for
ouaplstnt.