Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1916-12-29
CHANDLER FILES
CONTEST ANSWER
Accuses Davenport of Bad
Faith and attempting to
Thwart Voters WILL
CALLS Jim A "D0-N0THING"
Says His Failure to Make Good
in Washington Responsible
for Defeat.
CALLS Jim A "DO-NOTHING'
Specialize The World.

Special to The World
NINITA. Okla. Dec. 2S.-T. A.
Chandler. congressman elect from tho
First Oklahoma district. today served
James $ Davenport his opponent.
with answer to the latter's contest.
Mr. Chandler denies all OF the
charges made 10y Davenport. and In
his answer makes many charges
against the contestant Chandler
charges that Davenport did not bring
the contest In good faith. that his
charges are without foundation of fact
or merit. Mr.. Chandler sets out that
two of the three members of the state
election board were Democrats and
that after a thoro canvass that board
has issued certificate OF election to
him.
While Mr.. Davenport makes flag
rant charges of election frauds In
every county In the district. Mr..
Chandler sets out that the election
boards and election inspectors and the
registrars were all Democrats and
members Of the same party as the con
tcstant, and he denies that these men
rcsorted to fraud against member
of their own party In the interest or
the opposition. Mr.. Chandler con-
tends that these men. all appointees.
are under oath. and that he does not
believe them guilty as charged by
Davenport.
Says Indians Didn't Vote.
ON the other hand. Mr. Chandler
contends that any question Of doubt
would have reverted to the benefit OF
the contestant, and he sets out that
in many instances in Delaware. N.ayes
and Ottawa counties hundreds OF
voters of Indian blood were denied
| tho rtpht In and he Hitag that
they were unable TO register.
- T. -- II -
Mr. Chandler charges that the con-
tcstant is not now and was not on
November qualified to hold the office
of congressman. and accuses him OF
exceeding the limit in campaign ex-
penditurcs and making campaign
promises.
The charge of Mr. Chandler that
the contest was not brought by Dav-
enrort in good faith opens an ave-
nue. for interesting DEVELOPMENTS.
Democrats Resent Contest
While this district Is strongly DEM
ocratic, IL giving Mr.. Wilson arproN-
mately $500 majority II Is conceded
by members of the Democratic party
that hundreds e them voted for Mr..
Chandler in order to eliminate Dav-
onport from politics. on account OF his
'dC-tt OtnlnE pOilty III NdsnlhbAoH
and his character IS citizen. and the
better class of Democrats thruout the
district resent the contest brought by
Davenport in the face of mis- over
whelmlne defeat At the hands or
members OF his own party They
also resent the charge of Davenport
that members of the election boards
and inspectors members of the DEM
ocrat party. are guilty of fraud.
Contest Expenses paid.
ON the same grounds that Dayen-
port bases his pretended charges any
other candidate in the United states.
no matter how large the majority
might he against him could file IKE
contest. with exactly the same gen.
eral charges. and receive from tho
government of the United states All
cxuenses of the contest. with attor-
nev fees, no. to exceed $4,000. There
is no maximum or minimum basis
COR charges under the law governing
, contests, and nothing that can pro-
hibit any defeated candidate from
bringing a contest. Instances have
been known where indlsCriinlnatins
, ATTORNEYS, hungry for fees nave
brought contests of similar nature
ON a contingent fee with the defeated
candidate, who are paid by the gov
orrment regardless of the merits OIL
the case.