The Bolivar bulletin. (Bolivar, Tenn.) 1888-1946, 1902-09-26
To THE DEMOCRATS OF HARDEMAN
COUNTY.

On our return from Savannah, we
published a plain statement of facts
in regard to the Senatorial conven-
ton. After doing this, we consid-
cred that our duty was finished. If
a part of the delegates instructed
for ]. G.. Jackson had there voted
for w. r. Tuten, it was no more a
matter of concern to us than to any
other democrat. 1t was the de-
mocracy of Hardeman County which
instructed them, and to them, they
must give an account.
But, a card appeared in last
weeks Free Press, signed by G. a.
Miller, J. r. Reaves, and others,
containing statements and conclu-
sions to which we deem it proper
to reply.
In the first place, they "utterly
deny that they violated their in
structions," yet they voted first
against resembling the two-thirds
rule, which wo uId have nominated
Jackson, as the vote then was
Jackson 38, Tuten 81, and finally
they voted directly for Tuten {. We
suppose every democrat of voting
age knows whether they were in
structed or not. They say they
"ceased to vote for Jackson after
voting for him 1873 times" The
people of this county instructed
them to vote for Jackson as long as
his name was before the convention
and not for a limited number of
times. To vote for Jackson 1900
times and then vote for Tuten while
Jackson had the majority was just
as much bolt as if they had voted
for Tuten on the first ballot. There
would have been no excuse for them
to bolt if they had voted for him
seventeen thousand times. If they
were tired, they might have return
ed home, and left it in the hands of
Jackson's friends. They did not
mind voting for Tuten, who had
been voted for good many times
himself. If they did not want to
obey the instructions of the people
they ought not to have gone to the
convention. The truth is, they
got up proxies, and had proxies re-
voked which had been given to
known friends of Jackson, and went
to Savannah for the express pur-
pose of defeating him. Days be-
fore the convention met, we are re-
liably informed that &. A. Miller
wrote and telephoned Edgar Cher
ry, at Savannah, that he would
bring a delegation to defeat Jack
son; and on their way there they
boosted openly that they were going
to defeat Jackson. On their arrival
at Savannah, they demanded Of us
that the chairman Of our delegation
should cast their prOrata of the vote
for some one besides Jackson,
whenever they saw fit to do so, to
which we refused to consent. Is it
strange that Tuten's friends should
have held out so long, though in a
minority, when they had the assn
rance that Miller, Reaves e Co.
had come to the convention TO vote
against Jackson? They say Coates
moved to adjourn the convention
''sine die, to break 1t up without
nomination" Coates moved to adj
journ, and to refer this question
back to legal primary to be held |
October 4th, which was voted |
against by Miller, Reaves g Co.
We frequently offered to refer it
back to the committee and would |
have agreed to any solution that
was fair and just. All this happen
ed a day before these gentlemen
bolted their instructions and voted |
for Tuten. They say, ''it became
evident to all that Jackson could |
not be nominated Why not,
when Jackson had 80 votes to Tu-
tens 81 votes? Was it more evil
dent that Tuten could be, and he in
a minority? If so, it must have
been because of the assurances they
had that Miller and Reaves would
come to their help. But this bright
is arrived at in their
card:-that we who obeyed our in
structions and voted for Jackson,
and not themselves, who voted
against him, care responsible for
Jackson's defeat :" According to
this reasoning, if we had all voted
against Jackson he would have been
elected!
Next they say it was the "uncom-
promising conduct of A. J, Coates"
What compromise could Coates
make, and he instructed to vote for
Jackson? But, in another place,
they say Coates offered "'the sup
port of Hardeman County to 9TH
ers," charging him at the same
time with being uncompromising
and with being compromising
1t appears from this card that
those in this county who contribut-
ed to pay the expenses of poor del
egates from Benton County,. who
were for Jackson, were only s'pre-
tended" friends of Jackson, and
that the only genuine friends Jack
son had were those who voted
against him. The votes by dele
gates of Benton County stood 25
for Tuten, 20 for Jackson. They
were not instructed, but under the
unit rule the solid vote of that
county was cast for Tuten. If this