The Daily Texarkanian., 1898-05-18
Advertisement
TO THE PUBLIC

that betrayed DR.. Jei McCasland
IN the last hour and that his ignom-
iuious defeat in Sulphur is attrib-
utable 10 this fact. / submit that
this is doing me credit over much
aud at the same time is a reflection
upon the stability and intelligence
Of the voters Of my township. II
never was an ardent supporter Of
DrlMcCasland but aimed to vote
for him from the day of his au-
nouncement, had he remained con
sistent.
Without going into details or
dealing in personalities was con.
yinced beyoudcavil or question'that
his candidacy was a straight double
deal and / have so told him and
have further told him that if he
would question the statement ]
would adduce the proof. Young
Mr.. Walker did make the state
ment that certain politicians in the
city had proposed to well known
aud prominent men north of Sui
phur that if they could become a
candidate for county representa-
tive, their announcement fee and
etc, would be paid.
He said they finally found little
doctor in Sulphur township who
agreed to make the race. On the
morning of the speaking at Bright
Star, DR.. McCasland was on the
ground right up to the speaking,
he came to me and requested il
anything was said derogatory to
his interest to state to the people
that he was called away on bust
ness. l reluctantly agreed to do
so.
After Mr.. Walkers talk / stated
to the people that the doctor was
unexpectedly called away, that he
was known and mot y but that the
people of Sulphur township would
be slow to believe that he was
brought out to subserve the inter
est or ambition of another, and l
further said that the men he claim.
ed to be supporting was confrma-
ton strong that he was making a
legitimate race. This was April
30, the last time l saw the willy
doctor until after the primary. He
told me he would go away next day
but did not leave till Monday May
2, the evening of the speaking at
Sand Hill, He was advised of Mr..
Walkers statements, and knew
that Sand Hill and Era were yet to
hear from. In Mr.. Walkers
speeches and private conversation
to me coupled with other informa-
ton given to me privately and
which was and is reliable | was fully
warranted in writing to the Mr..
| Hughes as did.
l had asked them to vote for the
doctor and they being relatives and
intimate friends of mine, l felt it a
duty to acquaint them with what
was being SAID, asked them to treat
the letter privately, and never in
tended to make any fight on DR..
McCasland at all, although con-
vinced of his duplicitY and ashamed
and mortified at his failure to meet
Mr.. Walker.
1t will be observed that my letter
was written May l, and not mailed
until after the speaking at Era on
May 3. I held the letter, hoping
and believing he would meet Mr..
Walker and acquit himself credita
bly-this he failed and refused to
to do The Hughes incident is the
only time l spoke against him, and
this privately to all intents and
purposes-it being a private letter
to a personal friend.
Could I have seen the doctor any
day just preceding the primary l
should have found special pleasure
in telling him just how l felt and in
doing what | could to defeat him
All this and more I have told the
doctor since the primary. As a
matter of fact never parted my
lips against the doctor during the
campaign, and the statement that
he was betrayed by me is healthy
falsehood from a puny man.
Who betrayed the doctor at
Sand Hill, where | am informed he
only received three votes out of
forty-fve? His best vote in Sui
phur township was at Ravana.
DR.. McCasland declares and
maintains that this letter was given
publicity against his expressed will
and protest and having reached !
Ravana just before the polls were
closed, can not see how the letter
could have perceptibly affected the