The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1900-05-28
THREE HEARD FROM.
Caueuses Held Saturday In Gray, xsr-
mouth and Raymond.


Three more towns held Republican eau.
cuses Saturday. They were YARN outh,
Gray and Raymond. Large caucuses
were the rule in all Of these places, but
the delegates were uninstructed fol
county attorney or sheriff. In Gray the
county delegates We're instructed to ac.
in accordance with the instructions OF
NC. Morrill,, who is candidate for
county commissioner. In Raymond
they were instructed to give Henry Har-
mon their support for county commission
or, but were otherwise uninstructed.
YARMOUTH.
In Yarmouth DIR. II. A. Merrill presid-
ed over the caucus and DIR. Remission
was chosen secretary. The county dele
gates who were chosen were +. H. VIII
son, John A. Seabury, A. l.. Loring, j.
G. Rogers and +. W. Bucknam. The
delegates to the district convention We're
j. Y. Hodsdon, l. F.True, C.E. Greeley,
ii. A. Merrill and l.. Hamilton. The
delegates to the state convention were G.
:. Durham, J. II. Hodsdon, W. b. Allen,
f. +. Merrill and II. q. Ross.
A member of the county delegation
telephoned the PRESS yesterday that
they were all for Whitehouse for county
attorney. 1t is also understood that the
delegates will support Virgin Tor Senator
and Despeaux for sheriff.
GRAY.
The following delegates to the county
convention We're chosen in Gray where
there was a largely attended caucus:
Charles Thayer, +. y. Douglass, Il. ;.
Pennell and David +. Houston. The fol-
lowing delegates We're chosen to the state
convention: ]. w. Morrill,, NJ. c. Nor
rill and F. y. Douglass. The delegates
to the district convention We're j. w.
Morrill,, W. II. Dow and c. l.. Pennell.
RAYMOND.
At the largely attended caucus Henry
J.. Farnham and John ii. Hayden We're
chosen delegates to the county conven-
ton. Frank NJ. Hawkes. and George ii.
Hall TO the district convention, and
Henry Harmon and Seth W. Plummr 10
the district convention.
THE GORHAM DELEG ALTON AGAIN
TO the Editor Of the Pres:
Referring to your issue of May 25th
your correspondent claims that the Cor
ham delegation are not for Despeaux.
Why not? They We're not instructed
differently 1t is well known they are in
Des peaux's hands. Your first correspon
dent no doubt knew of what he claimed
when he said they Were. Your cores
pondent of the 25th states that TO his
certain knowledge" they We're expected
to vote for Mcdonald. Why should they
be? They were not instructed at all
Not a word to that effect was said in
caucus. On the contrary they We're main
ly nominated by Despeaux men.
The certain knowledge" that he re-
tains in his head is that he was intrust-
ed. by an overwhelming majority of the
caucus TO present vote of instructions
TO the delegates whereby they were to use
all honorable means against Despeaux,
and that certain knowledge" must
haunt him still For it is plain to the
mind Of every candid person that he be-
trayed his trust and thereby his friends
and let the golden moments pass by
not representing his constituents and the
cause of right and of temperance, not
only in Gorham but the who lie county.
Was there motive? We think it. 1T
is enough to say that indignation is
widespread.
After the county delegates were chos-
en- another committee was called and
made their report and it was acted upon
thus giving any live man chance to
speak If he ever intended to. Therefore
we take exceptions to there being any
snap in the caucus. We will certainly
osre- with him, however, that the citi-
zens are thoroughly aroused, but 1t is ov-
er such a defeat.
II. +. Shackford.