The Delegate Bunko: Party Math and a Patronage Promise

Tacoma, Aug. 26 — [Special.] — Letter Writer Carson, of Seattle, is charged by the Democratic state committee magnates with cheating King county out of its apportionment of delegates to the state convention on the basis of the allotment of the other counties of the state. If Carson had made the least objection as chairman of the apportionment committee, King county would have had a fighting chance of getting a just apportionment and would have received some support from those outside of Wahare's friends. As it was, Carson was satisfied with the odd delegate. Leader Collins had a member of his newspaper staff, Strong, on the apportionment committee, and no objection was raised by him or Carson to giving King the little end of the stick. In fact, Carson is accused of suggesting apportionment cutting down King's delegation. The present plan is to make believe the state committee is willing to leave the matter with the state convention, but this is on the theory that the convention will be wagged by the Tillicums and will seat only forty-five delegates from King, as designated by the state proxy convention.

Following Correspondence. Port Townsend, Aug. 26 — [Special.] — After debating in his own mind on the matter for two days, and after full conference with his most intimate friends in this city, Collector Saunders, on the 14th inst., mailed the following letter to Col. James Hamilton Lewis. It explains itself, and will be read with great interest. The italics are those of the collector. A letterpress copy of the original letter is at the Post-Intelligencer's news bureau here. Mr. Moore is president of the Longshoremen's Union in Seattle:

'Office of the Collector of Customs, Port Townsend, Wash., August 14, 1894. Col. James Hamilton Lewis, Washington — Dear Sir: In acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, I indignantly repel your very impolite insinuation that I have made any promise to you which has not been strictly kept. Mr. R. W. Jennings is a witness to everything in the nature of a promise I ever made to you. You say that there have been, sir, as you of course recall, five separate appointments given from your department to this West Side, and since I sought the appointment of Mr. Moore to something. Yet, notwithstanding promises made and authority given to me to assure Mr. Moore of his success, the 'first place,' without any 'more effort' on my part, I have observed that through pressure of affairs or lapse of recollection on your part, I have been subjected to the burden of either deluding my friends or aiding them in confiding in your assurances, which, unhappily for all of us, have proven disastrous illusions to them and to me alike. I know not what assurances or promises you have made to Mr. Moore or any one else. I am only responsible for any statements I may have made to you. Months after the Seattle appointments had been made you, in this office, earnestly recommended and requested the appointment of Mr. Moore; and again in your office you repeated the request. On both occasions I distinctly stated to you that there were no vacancies, and that I did not know of any likely to occur, but that the first appointment of an inspector for Seattle would go to your friend Moore. That, sir, was my promise; and that, sir, is my promise now; and that promise, sir, will be kept if Mr. Moore, when the opportunity occurs of making the appointment, is deserving of it. I do not recall that there have been five appointments made from this office since my promise to you. If there has been one, it was agreed upon before you ever spoke to me on the subject. Very respectfully, J. C. Saunders, Collector.'