The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1904-08-12

cies Of your logic. According to the
organ you have resortsd TO TO promul-,
gate your ideas on the subject, there
we're only l01 votes cast on your mo-
tion, which on the first motion there
were lle. II It is a fact that the con-
vention was entitled to cast ll6 votes
and only lO1 were cast, Is it not true
that there was mot complete vote and
Is it not also true, that, IL those remain
ing In the delegations cast the full vote
OF tine delegation, as IL all were present
in the delegation, that all the delega-
lions were not represented in This vote.
on your motionf And since this Is self
evident and needs no further argument
in support of it, why does not what the
Herald says in this respect as given be-
low properly describe and sum up the
situation:
Gardiner waited until an unfair adj.
vantage could be taken and then sprung,
the resolution. After large number
had left the hall to catch trains, Gardi-
ner saw Chat those remaining were most.
ly in favor of this pet scheme. And.
accordingly he introduced the motion"
The figures chow that a number had.
left the hall and surely Mr.. Gardiner
viii not go back on themf That Is
sufficient proof of what the Herald says.
about a number of them having left.
the hall to catch trains and Gardiner can
not deny it successfully. So far as his
waiting Is concerned for this opportunity
that is not matter here, as we win not
judge him in that respect or say that.
he did it purposely But that it was
pet scheme of his to get Short endorsed
there is every reason to believe and to
show Mr.. Gardiner that that was the
way others looked upon it, we again
quote the Clarksburg News on tine sub
ject. That sheet. said:
Gardiner also said that the ring was
in mortal terror for fear that the Pro-
hibitionists would endorse Short, and
spoke his sentiments as being in favor
of his nomination"
That connected with tine fact that at
the last moment he sprung the motion
to instruct the committee to put Short
on and 50 forth certainly shows that ne
was bent on having Short on tine Prohi
bition ticket, and since such was the
case, why may it not be properly said
that it was pet scheme of hisi
Gardiner also says:
And the conviction among them
deepened at every moment that they mad
made mistake by voting for blank,
BY making this statement he shows that
he is not aware of any such conviction
among those who voted for "blank.p for
do the figures not show, as given by the
News, that even all those wao voted for
Short to go on the ticket did not vote
for his motion? Look at the figures
Short received 81 STA votes on the frs
proposition and only SO on the last
This shows that there mad been a change
of sentiment on the Gardiner side of it,
and it does not show that those who
voted for BLANK" had changed their
minds or were convinced that there had
been mistake on the zrs- proposition
Furthermore, Mr. Gardiner incorpor-
ates the following IN his arcieie, which
the figures show to be gross error:
.. 80 s,, ueie a, WIS permitted = va.
- ~. .o.e' .'us .o''''ss ""y 80 ~
my -''',e so"' ou'.
iie,e - wants 20 n"Ne One i"'p'eSsio"
,ii''s ''.si' wac a iu.i VOC ou' nov uoes
~ lseOps,'s 'l.1 s,a's'aene NY. W." ., -.
us'''ss' w'',en p'aiH'y snow .""s '.ete
was "o' q run VOC ana O''"e 'noSe Mao
went ou' a'u no' nave 1hels WV
counted beslaes' Is nos Alr. 1aluinsi
aware OF enc iees 'nn' Ciay oist'lee Mus
NOT represented AZ an IN 'ne eOiNe"'ion'
when .he vote on ms 'no''on WIS 'aNeh'
was 'here not open remark IN vhe con
vention that Gay district hod sonei
And : II not iact that not slns,e
vote on tfat motion o. ms was aeered
tied to Clay district, ana yet nc makes