River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1881-10-13
Reply to Kimbalps Madison Letter by N. P
Haugen.

Haugen.
Editors JOURNAL:
A word in response to the late Mad
ison letter of Mr.. M. B. Kimball might,
perhaps, not be out of place on my
part, and / beg for that purpose q
small space in your columns. The
burden of Mr.. Kimball's song is, that
the result of the late Republican con-
vention was brought about by the So
called Senatorial Ring" whatever
that may be. Now, if there was any
corruption entering into the choice of
the nominees, the Republican voters
would not only be justified in repudi-
ating the action of the convention at
the polls, but it would most manifes silly
be their duty to do so. Had Mr.. Kim
ball allowed himself time to cool after
the excitement of campaign in
which he undoubtedly felt a strong
personal and financial interest, the
letter referred to would never have
enlightened !? the public. | am in
duced to write this because, in Justice
to myself and my colleagues on the
State ticket, the question as to whether
or not we are the choice OF $ ring }"
something people generally consider
very dangerous, although the
cry has reveberated through the
ranks of every political party when in
the ascendency ever since the govern
ment was organized-may be of very
great Importance in the coming cam
paign.
Any person perusing Mr.. KIM
balls letter will naturally come to the
conclusion that the nominees of the
convention were, at least, favorable
to the election of the present q. 5.
Senators of this State. Let us analyze
that matter, and see how the NOM
inees in question stood as regards the
two senatorial contests of last winter.
have endeavored to inform myself
on that subject, and the result of my
investigation is as follows: Gen. Rusk
favored the nomination of both Saw
yer and Cameron. Mr.. Fifield, who
was member of the Legislature, OPP
posed Sawyer, but favored Cameron.
Mr.. Timme, l am informed, opposed
both Sawyer and Cameron. My in
! formation as to Mr.. Timme may not
be perfectly reliable. Mr.. Frisby
favored Sawyer, but opposed Came
ron. Mr.. Graham's views are not
known, but it is perhaps fair to sup
pose that he favored Senator Saw.
yer, they both residing in the same
city-0shkosh. Mr.. Spooner opposed
both Sawyer and Cameron.
Where Mr.. Kimball got his informa-
ton that am sin full fellowship with
the senatorial combination, and it is
understood he o. was here lat Madison)
last winter as a Lobbyist in its interests,
and consequently known to be its
man l am unable to conceive. was
not in Madison during either of the
senatorial campaigns of last winter,
Mr.. Kimball's statement to the con-
trary Notwithstanding. In compliance
with wish of my friend, Hon. /. b.
Bradford, of Eau Claire. with whom j
was a fellow member in the Legisla-
ture the preceding winter, and who
was a candidate for the speakership,
l visited Madison at the opening of
| the Legislature, but the very next
day after the organization returned
home. / did not visit Madison again
until after not only Senator Sawyer
had been nominated and elected, but
after the nomination of Mr.. Cameron
Petitions were circulated through
out this neighborhood request
ing our Senator and Assemblyman,
:. in case the choice should be between
Mr.. Keyes and Mr.. Sawyer" to vote
Tor Mr.. Sawyer. / have not copy of
the petition before me. but that was
the import, and, if 1 recollect rightly
the exact wording of it. The opposi-
ton in this section at that time was
to the so-called " Reyes Ring the
:. Senatorial Ring not having come
into existence. One of those petitions
signed.
In the second campaign l was