St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-10-11

him except two. Murdoch voted fol Mullen
and Stocker for White. Just why the votes
of WabaSha went to Lovely when the county
was known to be strongly for White. will
probably never be explained. The failure
of Greer, of that county, to keep his prom
Use, as well as the
TREACHERY OF THE STEELE DELEGATION.
also prevented Whites nomination, which
would have been accomplished but for this
breach of faith. On the third day Mullen
asked White if he thought he (White) could
be nominated. White said he couldn't
without the aid of Wabasha, which was for
him, and he couldn't understand why Null
len stood in his way. Greer soon after
wards came to Daniels and made propo-
sition. He said if the White men would
give Mullen twenty or more votes for three
ballots, and Mullen did not draw enough
from Lovely's forces to nominate him,
then Wabasha would go for White with
its seven votes. Just at this time the Dun
nell men also made proposition. They
asked the White men to give them twenty
two votes, for three ballots, and then, il
Dunnell was not nominated, the six votes
of Steele would be cast for White. This
was considered very dangerous thing to
do as 1t was understood that the Houston
county delegation was anxious to make a
break to Dunnell if they saw chance for
his nomination. If the White men gave
Dunnell twenty-five votes, the votes from
Wabasha and Steele-thirteen- make
thTty-tive, and it would give Houston
county the power to nominate him. 1t was
understood that when the three ballots
votes should be thrown to him. and when
10 haI IA
seven votes of Wabasha were to como
over to him. Wabasha and Steele
agreed to come over to White
after Mullen and Dunnell each had
chance for three ballots, and in the event
that neither was nominated. 1t was
desperate move for the White men to make,
because it gave both Mullen and Dunnell a
chance for the nomination. But if neither
could break the Lovely column, then White
was certain of winning-f the pledges
were not violated. Three ballots were
taken under this agreement when con-
solicitation was made on Mullen. But he
could not win. Then Dunnell had the
benefit of three ballots. At one time his
vote reached So, % of the White men
going for him. 1t was expected that
Houston county would break for him, and
Dunnell was confident of it, but for some
reason they did not do so, and Dunnell
also failed. Then came the ballot which
Whites friends were sanguine would be
the last, and would nominate him. Steele
and Wabasha were pledged to him, which,
with his own 80. would give him total of
40. But there was open treachery, and
when the ballot was announced it was found
that only Of the Ii pledged had been de-
hvered. This was the ballot on which
White received 80 votes, and which, he
claims, fairly nominated him.
WHY IT WAS ONE SHORT.
Mr.. White, says delegate from Waba-
Sha county, explained to delegate from
Olmsted how the total was one short on
that ballot. The Wabasha delegate knew
of the promises that had been made to
Whites friends, and he knew that they
were being deceived-that some one was
lying to them. And so. in the hope that,
by not voting, White might geta majority
of the votes cast, he refrained from voting
at all. The Wabasha man was not for
White. but. as he expressed it, he was will
ing to give White chance. White asserts
that Daniels, of Rochester, and Kingsley,
of Chattield, consented to take another bal
lot without his knowledge. If he had
known that he had received thirty-nine
vOteS-a majority of those cast-he would
never have consented to take another bal
lot. If the Lovely men had kicked about
it he would simply have come away and
announced himself as the regular nominee.
But Daniels, relying on the promises of
Greer and Steele county, was certain that
White would receive forty votes or more
on the next ballot, and, rather
than have trouble, he consented
to another ballOt-and got badly fooled and
sold out. And this is how it all came
about. Mr.. White certainly knows all the
inside facts, and this chapter of history
may be accepted as literally correct. If
money was used 10 influence delegates, Mr.:
White says it was done so carefully that no
evidence could be secured. Mullen admitted
to him at Kasson that the G. A. r. men
would not support Lovely. 1t is MI.
Whites belief that the displacement of
Mullen by Greer as a member of the state
central committee. after the former had
been appointed. was because of the fact that
Mullen is not looked upon as a very loyal
Lovely man. Mr.. White says he has al
ways understood that McGill and Gov.
Davis did everything in their power to help
Lovely. To prove the validity of his claim
that majority Of the votes cast is all that
is necessary to nominate, and show the alb
surdty of the claim made by the
Lovely men that majority of the dele
gates to the convention is necessary, MI.
White cites the case of Miller Todd, at
Albert Lea. Lovely's own home. Todd
was a delegate to Kasson in favor of
Lovely, and was also chairman of the
Albert Lea convention, at which ne (TOdd)
was nominated for an office. That con-
vention was composed of seyenty-four dele
gates, but some of them were not present
or did not vote. Mr.. Todd received thirty
seven, which was majority of the votes
cast, but not of the convention, and was
declared nominated. Mr.. White can't see
where the distinction comes in. The cases
are exactly alike. and the matter is made
more conspicuous because of the fact that
Todd was member of the Kasson conven-
tioD, which made the rule that only ma
jority of the delegates to the convention
could nominate