The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-06-11
THE ANTI BYNUM REVOLT.
More than a Majority of Legally Elected
Delegates Repudiate His Nomination.
A Strong Statement of the Facts Against the
Regularity of His Neutrality-suspicious.
Not the Choice of Majority.
The following document tells its own story:


The undersigned. a majority of the regularly
elected delegates to the late Democratic con-
gressional convention in the Seventh district OF
Indiana, desire to submit fair and full state
ment of the events which transpired on that oc-
casion for the consideration of their brethren OF
the district. According to the ratio of repre-
sentation agreed uron. there were 1l9 votes In
the convention. making 60 votes necessary to
nomination. The 1l9 votes were divided among
the several counties as follows: Hancock, IL;
Madison, 10; Shelby II, and Marion, H. I'm
fortunately, when the convention met there
were found to be contested seats in the Second,
Ninth, Thirteenth Seventeenth, Twenty-thrd
and Twenty fourth wards in the city OF Indian
apols, making IL in all, and the whole IL on one
side were in favor of the nomination of Bynum,
but the IL on the other side were all opposed to
it, and the latter held the proper credentials and
were the regular delegates, as We shall subse-
Quently show.
But leaving the IL contested seats out of con-
sderation, there was, beyond question. ma
jority of the delegates opposed to Bynums NOM
ination, and even had the IL contested seats
been equally divided there would still have been
a majority against him. This cannot be sue
cessfully contradicted for even on the test vote
for permanent chairman, after an interruptions
temporary chairman had arbitrarily and un-
fairly allowed nearly all of the IL contested By
mum delegates to vote before their right to 90
so had been passed upon by either a committee
on credentials or by the convention, it was found
that the Byrum side had but 59d votes to 54a on
the other side. thus showing that a change OF
votes would have changed the result and that
the result was obtained only by the unfair
means referred to. This was followed by action
still more outrageously unfair and unjust by the
chairman allowing the Bynum delegates whose
seats were contested to vote in their own case
in the selection Of committee on credentials,
and excluding the votes of the contesting dele
gates the other side.
What would be thought of the fairness of a
court that would allow one of the parties to
suit to sit as a juryman in his own case, or that
would allow the contestants one side only to
select the jury? And vet that was exactly what
was done in this case. Why did not the Bynum
faction accept the fair and manly offer made by
us, to let the uncontcsted delegates from each
county select a committeeman on credentials
and abide by the action of such committee.
without the contesting delegates on either side
having vote2 Simply because majority of
the regularly and legally elected delegates were
against him, and they knew it. They knew
that not one Of the IL contesting Bynum dele
gates had credentials signed by the proper off
GERS of the county committee, and some of them
not even by the ward committeeman. Whereas
all the II contestants on the other side bad ere
dentials signed by the proper officers OF the
county committee, and some of them who were
not allowed to vote had. in addition, the certifi
cate of the ward committeeman.
They knew that the county committee alcne
authorized to call the primaries, and that in
this the county committee did call them,
fixing the time and place of meeting. and re-
curing that the result in each case should be
certified to the committee by the officers Of such
primary, and it clearly the dnty OF the
county committee to issue the credentials. This
they did do, and in accordance with democratic
usage. Here is the exact language OF the call:
The delegates selected to the congressional joint
representative aud judicial conventions will receive
their credentials of the secretary of the county COM
mittee Thursday morning, on presentation of a GER
tifcate from the chairman and secretary of the pr
mary convention of their election By order of execu
tive committee. SIMEON Coy, Chairman.
w. w. SPENCER, Secretary.
That the anti Bynum delegates were entitled
to their seats in the IL contested is
shown not only by their holding the regular Gre
dentials but by the further fact that the judi
cial convention, since held, unanimously decided
that the delegates elected the same ticket
were the regular delegates, and entitled to their
seats. In the judicial convention the delegates
who were elected on the anti Bynum states, and
bore the same kind Of credentials, were given
their seats.
Austin H. Brown chairman of the committee,
in submitting the report, said: I'VE have care
fully examined the case of every contestant be-
fore US, and, In each instance, accepted the Gre
dentials signed by the chairman and secretary of
the county committee as the only valid and per-
feet ones. This accords with every rule and
precedent governing such cases. A precinct
commtteemans sole and only duty is to call
primary meeting to order, and entertain a mo-
ton for the election of \ permanent chairman.
And, indeed, think any citizen present at the
hour named for the primary to open may as we'll
perform the duty. In this county. however it
has been customary for the precinct committee
man to call the meeting to order. This being
done, all duties pertaining to the meeting de-
volve upon the officers in immediate charge
The chairman and secretary of each primary are
the proper persons to certify to the chairman
and secretary of the county committee as to who
were duly elected delegates, and the latter Off
GERS upon such certificates, issue the creden-
tials-and the only credentials-which entitle
man to delegate place in the convention"
And yet, in the face of all this. in the con
tested cases In the congressional convention
every one of the IL regularly elected anti-By-
mum delegates, who held the only official creden-
tials, not only arbitrarily kept out of their
seats by unfair and INSCRIPTIONS MEANS but
their opponents we're allowed to vote in selecting
committee to decide their own cases.
In word it was manifest that the Bynum
minority had arranged to use accidental aud
INSCRIPTIONS district committeeman and
chairman elected by unfair means to stifle the
wishes of the majority at all hazards; and, TO
that end, persons entitled to seats and holding
regular credentials were not allowed. by the
chairman, TO vote, because they were known to
be against Bynum; but their opponents were al
lowed to vote. simply because they were for By
mum, Notwithstanding they did not pretend to
have proper credentials from the county COM
mittee. Besides the room where the convention
had been called had evidently been packed by
the same influence and for the same purpose.
and there was evidence of a settled determine
ton that there should neither be deliberation
nor fair play.
Every proposition looking to harmony and fair
play was howed down by the mob which had
been provided tor the occasion, and every man
who rose to his feet with such proposition was
insulted by the hooting and bowling gang.
Under this unprecedented and disgracetu state
of things. what were we to do? A majority of
the lawfully elected delegates were opposed to
Bynum Leaving out all contestants, MAORI
ty was still opposed to him. 1t was believed
that majority of the Democrats of the district
was opposed to him. and that his nomination
would be certain defeat of the party at the polls.
But the majority was gagged by the chairman,
and argument and appeals were impossible on &C.
count of the mob and the unfairness of the pre-
siding officer. 1t was apparent that if
manned and permitted a nomination under such
circumstances that the nominee would be de-