The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-06-11
THE BELMONT CONTEST.
Reply OF Colonel c. L. Poormnn to TIL
open Letter of Delegate Frank Rob

Reply of Colonel c. L. Poormnn to tho
Open Letter of Delegate Frank Rob
insUn.
To he Ei:or d hc lriG!igcnccr:
6fR:-In your issue OF Friday morn
ing you publish what is styled IAN
Open Letter to Colonel Poorman from
an Old Friend and Comrade OF Bridge
port" The writer and his letter ! re-
gard q OF sufficient importance, at this
cri scal period in the contest in which I
am engaged, 10 justify Il reply, and I
ask space for the following:
Mr. Frank Robinson, BRIDGEPORT, Ohio:
My DEAR SlK:-I nm constrained to
reply 10 your letter because 4 failure to
do SO would be construed into an ad-
mission OF tho truth OF its statements
and the Justice Of its conclusions. l re-
greet that you wrote it because l have
had such high regard for your sense OF
fairness that | did not think ycu would
attempt 10 prejudice the case at issue,
in which your VI actions were to be
determined by conditions tha, could
not be fully ascertained until the dele
gates from Belmont county meet at
Steubenvi!le, establish their qualrica-
tions, and by their votes decide them.
as n delegate occupying so nearly Il ju-
dicial petition as 0 admit the dele
gates from bridgeport preciucts do,
would it not have been fairer for you to
wait until the claims OF the two candi.
dates had been passed upon by the del
egales; or, il you could not wait, why
did you lot rs 4 friend, see me and talk
the matter over, or send me 4 personal
letter giving your views? l never treat
ed you discourteously, refused to an-
swer your letters nor even disregarded
your counsel and advice. As you usc
the press to reach me and make state
meuts in 4 form 10 be used by my or
ponents, l will in the same way point
out tho errors you have fallen into aud
give some basic facts to Counteract their
influence.
In your statement about the confer
ence agreement as to tho position OF the
Bridgeport precinct delegates you for
got 10 say that you had 4 previous con-
ference with Mr.. Dauiord, in which
yourself and two others had bcon agreed
upon for delegates in two OF those pre-
cinctS. and the further fact that great
pains had been taken to impress my
friends with the idea that Bridgeport
was go overwhelmingly Dansord that
there would be no use to run Poorman
delegates. You also neglected to make
any public statement that the Bridge
port delegates would be neutral or for
,tn candidate ,rh, .toV,ll L-,.n tho /, -
jority outside OF Bridgeport preciocts.
while it was being privately given out
that the delegates would be Tor Mr..
Danford. All OF this created dis.rust
among my friends in Bridgeport, and
they were urging mo to run Jelegate',
assuring mo TINT At least four OF ihcm
could be carried for me. 1t was at this
stage OF the isauc that l appeared for
the first and last time in Bridge
port and simply insisted that
the agreement should be made public.
This statement appeared in the INTEL
LIGEHCER only q day or two before the
primaries, and the very day it was
printed II OF tine parties TO j. denied
IN the presence OF my friends that it
was binding. Was thcro any wonder
tina. my friends were uneasy? was
then pressed by many Bridgeport Re-
publicans, somo OF whom had not beon
for ne before, 10 run separate dele
| gates and thOy would elect them.
| persistently refused TO sanction any
movement OF tho kind, although noti-
fed that Mr.. Daniord's friends were
running separate delegates in the.towu-
ship precinct. and l freely used the tele.
phone on Saturday protesting that l
was satisfied with tho agreement.
Ii as you say Capt. Daniord mp.
proved it," (,he ayrcementl why did
his friends run these delegates, and
Why did not their action impair the