The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1886-08-20


helping another, ought not to be in
dulged in. There is apparently dis
position to treat Mr.. Caswell unfairly.
Justice to him requires that The in
correct charges put forth against him
should be noticed. We are able this
aeek to explain more fully the state
ments so freely circulated, that Mr..
Caswell, at the Congressional conven-
ton at Beloit in 1884, promised, if he
should receive the nomination and
election, he would not be a candidate
for the Office again. Mr.. Ingersoll, of
Beloit, reliable citizen, late post mas
ter of that city, and present editor of
the Free Press, gives the statement of
the facts. which are corroberated by
other respectable gentlemen. Mr.. In
gersoll, in the Beloit Free Press, says:
"But for shreWd combination en-
gineered and perfected by certain dele
gates, the convention would have CON-
pleted its work on the first day, by the
nomination of Mr.. Caswsll. Instead,
however, a deadlock ensued, as unex-
pected and notifying to at least one if
not two of the candidates before the
convention as it was to majority of
the delegates. By the combination of
agreement alluded TO, delegates were
compelled to course sanctioned Meth
er by their own sense of right nor by
| the wishes of their constituents. AT
this juncture, and upon the second day
of the convention, at the instance OF
Mr.. Caswell-who, under the peculiar
circumstances, with one-half the dele
gates voting for him, and other dele
gates DESTROYS of voting for him. could
they be released from the agreement
into which through lack of foresight
they had entered, was placed in a most
embarrassing p0sition-a conference
was held between the candidates, Mr.
Caswell, Mr.. Weeks and Mr.. Cooper
During the conference, after discus
sion of the situation, Mr.. Caswell made
the suggestion that, If the combination
into tOhich the delegates from Wal
soorth, Racine and Ke1aoSha counties
had entered, be ended. thus gipiflg TIKI
delegates then bound by ii. freedom of I'm
dioi1uGl action, he would assure then
if nominated and elected. he would moi
be candidate two years hence. T(
this Mr.. Weeks seemed to be inclined
favOrably, but Mr.. Cooper, ION behali
of Racine" whose delegates, mainl,
connected the schrewd scheme, which
deprived delegates from other counties
of freedom of action, emphatically re
jected Mr.. Caswell's conciliatory sug
gesti0n, and the conference broke up
without accomplishing anything
Will it not appear to every candid
mind. unjust to charge Mr.. Caswel
with FORGETTING his offer, not to be |
candidate in 1886, when the condition
on which it was made was deliberatel.
rejected? Mr.. Caswell was a numbe
of times summoned home from Wash
ington by the illness of his wife; thi
was taken advantage of to insinuat
that his visits home were more TO
the purpose of looking after his re
nomination. 1t is denied that he eve
approached any one by word or letter
before the close of the late session o
Congress, on the subject of his re-elect
ion, and if any one knows to the con
trary, he is invited to make it known
There are other points of unfairnes
toward Mr.. Caswell which might b.
mentioned but this article has alread,
perhaps been extended too long.