Iowa voter. [volume] (Knoxville, Iowa) 1867-1874, 1870-07-21


ring particularly to the paragraph
which says that the Supreme Judges
should be known beforehand to he
sound OH the Railroad Tax Law, a
respected friend of ours Inquired of
us the other day whether we wanted
to make a new test for Republican-
ISM" and whether we "would pro-
scribe all who didn't favor the Hail
road Tax?" We answered him as
clearly and plainly as possible; ind,
as there may be others who would
ask similar questions, let us answer
them here as plainly.
In the first place, no man has ever
read in this paper, or has ever heard
us say, anything that would tend
toward desire to '.proscrlbe" any
Republican on account Of his vote for
or against the Railroad Tax. And
not only have we never expressed
such a sentiment or idea for ourselves,
but we have never heard anybody
else express or hint at anything like
such a sentiment. Moreover, we do
not harbor or conceal in our breasts
any feeling in favor of such proscrip-
ton, nor do we know of anybody
else who does. This is plain and un-
equivocal. We would not ''introduce
a new test of Republicanism;" and if
ever one were to be introduced, we
would not desire it to be this Rail-
road question. On the other hand
all the earnest friends of our Railroad
enterprise, ourselves among them,
have always done all they could to
keep this question out of politics en-
tirely. And if the friends Of the
Railroad earnestly desire to keep the
question from being any line Of di-
vision between the two parties, what
mortal reason can be imagined why
they should wish it to weaken their
own political strength?
Those who read the article referred
to, in last weeks paper, must have
noticed that the Railroad question is
not referred to therein in connection
with any other candidates than those
for Supreme Judges. The reasonis
plain, with moments thought. \
man may be the very best kind of
Republican, and oppose the Railroad
yossit.-..1n 0onnectt0n ,sitt tsss fiaes
OF Secretary Of State, Auditor, Regis
ter, Reporter, Congressman. or Re-
cOrder, Clerk or Supervisor, the Rail-
road matter need not be considered.
The duties Of those Offices will not be
in any way affected by the opinions
of their incumbents on the Tax
question.
But with the Supreme Judges the
case is different. They may be called
upon to decide as to the constitutions
atty of the Railroad Tax Law, as
once before. AS things now are, we
do not think this will happen; but it
is best to be prepared for it, The
former Railroad Law, two years ago,
passed the Legislature and became a
Law without the Governors approv-
al. The Governor could not consist
entity veto it, but he could not then
give it his signature. So the law
went into operation. The people Of
the State went at work under 1t,
doing all they could. Great amounts
of money and labor were expended
under its provisions. Then came
Judge Dillon's Opinion, and Knocked
it all in the head. All then was lost.
Now came the interval for reflec-
ton. The people Of the State had
ample time to consider the matter,
and see if they had been in the wrong,
if they had been too hasty, If they
had been doing themselves injustice
as Judge Dillon had said. They did
consider it. They discussed the SUBJ
ject, and weighed it in their minds.
This paper was one Of the journals
which were outspoken against Judge
Dillon's Opinion. Then new Leg
islature waschosen-nOt new House
alone, but several new Senator's, as In
this County. And this new Legis-
lature, being especially called upon
to consider Railroad matters, consid-
cred this Railroad Tax question also,
with all the light shed upon 1t in
the last two years. AS the result, a
new Law was drafted, essentially the
same as the former one, but guarded
so as to make it even more stringent
L. r.. r.. Al n v.onv,1n. as,A fhto N axr,