The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-04
THE TENTH DISTRICT QUARREL.
Mr.. Meeker Responds TO Charges Made
by Supporters of Judge Johnston.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
In your issue OF last Thursday there was
published a statement attacking the legal
ity Of the work of the Hammond conven-
ton which nominated Charles b. Lands for
Congress. 1t was signed by Nathan l. AS-
new. of Valparaiso; +. w. Mickey of East
Chicago. and b. Borders. OF Winamac.
Among other things, this statement was
made:
THE delegation from White county
entitled 10 eighteen votes, and cast that
number of votes in the convention. The
chairman of the delegation was a Lands
man, and announced the vote Of the dele
cation. which was by ballot, as being fif-
teen in favor of the motion TO adopt the
majority report and three against IL. AS
matter of fact, this was a false and fraud
ulent statement of the actual vote cast.
There were five men in that delegation
from White county who were selected as
johnston men, ana who actually voted Ia
majority report, and they not only stand
ready to verify this statement with their
oaths, but have already done So
AS / was chairman of the White county
delegation and my integrity is brought in
question, deem it due to me that you give
publicity to the real facts in this case
When 1 announced the vote of White coun-
~ as fifteen in favor of the above motion
and three against it, 1 announced the vote
fled by the delegates present. The vote in
the White county delegation was not taken
by ballot as above stated. Each delegate
openly announced how he wanted TO vote,
and his vote was reported and recorded ac-
cordingly, and with the full knowledge OF
every member of the delegation. Ii is not
true, as stated. that five delegates from
White county were selected Johnston
delegates. There was only one delegate in
White county who was selected as a John
ston delegate. Another delegate from this
voted JOhnSfOn'S friondQ
was elected as a Lands delegate i'm opposi-
ton to another man who was proposed in
the township convention by Judge John
ston's friends.
1 want to say that the "bulldozing'' that
was done in the White county delegation
was not done by Mr.. Landis's friends. Ii
was done by the Johnston men, who even
went so far as to bring a prominent official
of powerful corporation into the White
county delegation and seat him by the side
of a Lands delegate who happened 10 be
in the employ Of the aforesaid corporation.
with the undou5ted purpose Of intimidating
him.
/ notice that Messrs. Agnew, Mickey and
Borders attack MIR. Lands for going TO
Newton county and influencing two dele
gates instructed for Judge Johnston. This
seems most ridiculous, coming from the
source ii does, for all know that Judge
Johnston and his friends were untiring i'm
their efforts to capture Lands delegates or
secure their proxies.
one man prominently identified with
Judge Johnstons campaign, and who is now
among the most active in his opposition TO
Mr.. Landis-a man, too, who is oihcially
connected with the committee Of his coun-
ty tried to induce a Lands delegate who
had been instructed by vote of 60 10 j
to disregard his instructions and vote for
Judge Johnston, holding out the inducement
of federal appointment. This was done by
letter, and the letter can be produced.
In the Logansport convention, when Judge
Johnston nominated two years ago.
delegate from Mr.. Landis's own county
was offered a $3.50 position IL he would
forsake Lands and vote for Johnston
This offer was made at the Johnston head
quarters at the Murdoch Hotel Mr.. Lands
and his friends knew OF this and many
other unfair things that were done TO
cure the nomination OF ,Judge Johnston two
years ago. and yet they supported him
Loyalty and would have supported him
again had he secured the nomination.
Having been Identified with the politics OF
White county for many years. | am prob
ably better acquainted with matters per-
tanning thereto than Mr.. Agnew. whose
only experience in political way II this
county was in the interest Of Judge Johns
ton two years ago. when he attempted 70
secure the appointment and influence OF a
delegate for a financial consideration.
nave no disposition 10 quarrel with any Re-
publican. ! shall not discuss further here,
and Mr.. Landiss friends did not bring into
the convention the details OF the contest ia
Lake county, which were very properly left
dents OF the canvass in other counties OF
the district which might have been used to
advantage. There are incidents OF that
canvass and incidents of which these gen
make their position most embarrassing
when they lnainIsin their willingness 10
vote for Judge Johnston but not FOR Mr..
Lands. IL was a hard fight bat through
il all there was a distinct understanding
that whoever was defeated should turn his
guns on the common enemy. We all know
who was defeated and who ought now 20 lie
fighting Democrats. G. j. MEEkER.
Monticello. Ind. July 2.