Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1896-07-24
HE is MISTAKEN.

from f. H. Gamble, delegate to the Populst
appellate court convention at Chanute, which
contains some very erroneous covert charges
relative to Manford Schoonover's nomination.
Mr. Gamble finds no fault with Mr.. Schoon-
over, but he appears to think that the nomina-
ton was Influenced by Chairman Bredenthal.
He says: "The writer happened to be one of
the Franklin county delegates to the appellate
court convention. While he had nothing what
ever against Mr.. Schoonover, at the same time,
being, and for some years having been, per-
sonal friend of Mr.. Lapham, he supported the
latter and desired his nomination.
"Almost up to the very day of the conven-
ton, the friends of Mr.. Lapham were serene
and confident; but the evening before the day
of the convention, just before the writer's de-
parture for Chanute, in the course of convers-
alton with Mr.. Costigan, of the Ottawa Jour
nal, he made the prediction that Mr.. Lapham
would be defeated. He said that he knew
nothing of the standing of either candidate,
and had talked to no one about it, but he had
seen letter from headquarters at Topeka to the
effect that they were not supporting Mr.. Lap
ham, Mr.. Costigan also said that lie was sat-
is6ed, from his previous acquaintance with
their methods, that the letter he had seen was
but copy of many others, and that they had
been sent into every quarter of the district;
and he was so confident that that influence
would control the convention that he urged the
writer to 60 to Mr. Lapham before the conven-
ton should be called to order and tell him what
he (Costigan) had predicted"
In reply to the above, we say, most emphat-
icaly, that Chairman Breidenthal had nothing
whatever to do with the nomination of Manford
Schoonover. The editor of this paper was one
of the chief factors in securing Mr.. Schoon-
overs nomination. We had no communication
whatever with Mr.. Breidenthal on this or any
other subject. In fact, Breidenthal and the
writer have never been the best of friends, for
reasons best known to ourselves. We had no
reason to ask his advice in the matter, thinking
we were able to select our own candidate, with
out any outside assistance. We, of Anderson
county, do not consider that we owe anything
to Chairman Breidenthal or Populist headquar-
ters We have never received any favors from
them, and we ask none now. If Breidenthal
has such an influence over us, is it not likely
that we would favor his candidate for governor,
COL Harris? We are not for Harris.
We advocated Mr.. Schoonover's nomination
because we considered him the strongest candi-
date and the best fitted for the position of ap-
pelate Judge. We presented him to the dele
gates in the best manner we knew, but we did
not make fight against any other candidate.
Mr. Lapham is we'll liked by OR delegates and
all who met him. No one doubts that he is
good man, a true reformer, an able lawyer, and
would have filled the position of appellate judge
with credit to all concerned. Had he secured
the nomination, we would have supported him
most Loyalty and cheerfully. We have no
word of criticism of the plans adopted to secure
his nomination. They made an honorable eff
fort to nominate him, Mr.. Schoonover's dele
gates made an equally honorable effort to secure
his non,ination---and succeeded. That's all.
As to the letter which Costigan claims to
have seen, we know nothing about it and care
nothing about it, and say, without fear of sue
cessful contradiction, that not single delegate
to that convention ever saw such letter.
Mr. Lapham has sgni6ed his intention to
help make Mr.. Schoonover's majority as large
as possible and he'll do it, too.