The Camden chronicle. (Camden, Tenn.) 1890-current, 1900-07-27

7
am glad you called my attention 10 the matter.
w. j. BRYAN.
1t will thus be seen that Mr. Bryan had
no idea Of his letter being used as Mr..
Enloe had used il. Mr.. Sims criticised
the use of q letter. written to Mr. Euloe
by Mr.. Bryan while he was i'm Kentucky
as editor of paper and never intended 10
be used as an electi0neering scheme.
Mr. Enloe in his rejoinder as well as in
his speech charged that he was really
nominated in 1896, but the committee re-
fused to investigate charges made by him
and declared MIR. Sims the nominee; that
he had submitted TO the wrong thus done
him and supported Mr. Sims rather than
to disorganize the party, and appealed to
the Democrats of the district to right the
wrong done him in 1896, by nominating
him for Congress this time.
To this charge Of Mr.. EulUe Mr. Sims
replied that by the rulesunder which the
primary of 1896 was held, that each can
didate was permitted to select one of the
judges To hold said election, that MIR.
EnlOe, Mr. Trout and himself had availed
themselves of the benefit of this rule,
that consequently friend Of each can
didate was present ut each voting place
of said primary for the special purpose of
seeing that no wrong or injustice was
perpeJrated upon anyof the candidates.
that after the primary was thus held that
MIR. Enloe and his friends claimed that
the returns showed OH their face that Mr..
Enloe was nominated, and that his
friends claimed the same; that with both
of them claiming the nomination on the
face of the returns the Congressional
committee met at Lexington and decided
that inasmuch as the primary had been
held in the manner stated, that no sub
stantial injustice could have been done
either Of the candidates, and therefore
decided to declare the result on theTface
OF the returns as returned bv the primary
election officers, thus preventing Mr..
Enloe or himself from setting up any
! charges olfraud or irregularity that might
have existed if any; that the returns
from all the counties were submitted and
counted, except the returns from Madi-
son County, the committeeman from said
county claiming at the time that the rea-
son he did not submit them was because
the Congressionalcommittee had decided
not to 90 behind the returns
Mr.. Sims charged the fact to be,
which Mr., Enloe did not deny, that the
Madison County returns, after said de
cision by the committee, were fraudu-
lently altered, changed and forged so as
to give Mr.. Enloe majority in Madison
County exceeding the actual majority
received by him sufficient to overcome
the majority given Mr.. Sims in the rest
of the district; that because of said
fraud and forgery Madison County re.
turns were never submitted to the com
mittee or acted upon by them, and only
the returns from the nine other counties
were considered. Mr.. Sims claimed
that Mr.. Enloe was estopped from max
ing any charge of fraud as any of the
other counties when the returns from
his own had been so altered and changed
that the committeeman from his own
county would not even submit them for
consideration; that if the returns from
Madison County had been submitted
that Madison County could have ap-
pealed to the National Congressional
! Committee from the action of the dis
trict Congressional committee in refus-
ing to go behind the returns, and thus
carried up the whole case for revision,
and if the district committee had acted
improperly, the National committee on
appeal could have ordered an investiga.
ton as asked for by Mr.. Enloe; that ii
is thus seen that She investigation that
! he desired was prevented by the fraud
ulent action in changing the returns
from his own county.
Mr.. Sims said that he did not charge
that Enloe had done this himself, but
that it had been done by his friends
and that he now was estopped from com
planning of fraud or irregularity in any