Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1883-01-03

IHE minneapolis Evening journal has
been trying to get an expression from the
members elect Of the next Legislature on
the Senatorial and Prohibition questions.
About month ago the editor address
sed circular to each member, enclosing
a directed postal card in each case for re-
ply. OF the result the Journal of Dec.
eth, says: The number of replies re-
ceived is not flattering to the frankness
and openness of the new legislature, or
at least not indicative of the readiness of
the members to give the public the benefit
Of their opinions in advance Of the meet
ing Of the body. The right to refuse to
answer the questions is of course, fully
conceded: but we think it is no violent
assumption to say that the failure of so
many to respond furnishes pretty good
evidence that about two-thirds of the
members have not made up their minds,
or have determined to be governed by cir
cumstances that may arise. Out Of about
80 members of both houses only 40 have
replied and of these II refuse to commit
themselves for United States senator, and
% refuse to commit themselves on the
prohibition question.
OF the 40 responding to the circular, Is
declare themselves for Window as first
choice, and one for him as second choice;
five declare themselves for Mark H. Dun
nell. Gordon f. Cole is the first choice
of one, and the second choice of one
more, while Congressman Strait, G. K.
Davis, J. @. Farmer and Gov. Hubbard
have one supporter each. The members
replying to the circular constituted about
one third of the members Of both houses
Accepting these returns as an index of
the whole, it would indicate that Mr..
Dunnell could count upon Is votes sure,
and Window upon Unnecessary to q
choice, IS.
The question of submission makes a
very fair showing. About ene-half Of
those replying, or twenty -four, declare
themselves positively for it, while only
eleven distinctly oppose it. If the pro-
portion would hold good throughout the
entire body, prohibitory amendment
could count on 72 votes, with only 80 in
opposition"
Following are samples of the replies
received:
From Senator James O'Brien, of Gale
donia: Am opposed to prohibitions; will
favor the election to U. s. Senate of a low
tariff man. Am in favor of present inter
nal revenue law, except would like to see
it amended so as to relieve necessaries Of
senator either C. K. Davis, NJ. H. Dunnell,
John @. Farmer, or Gov. Hubbard. Am
not in favor of the submission to popular
vote of q constitutional prohibition
amendment.
From representative W. E. Potter of
LaCrescent: my first choice for United
States Senator is Mr.. Dunnell. Am not
in favor of submitting prohibition amend
ment. think the entire delegation from
Houston County agree on both ques-
TONS"
From Representative G. L. Baarnaas,
Of Fountain: In answer to your ques-
lions, lean say that Window is my choice
for y. s. Senator. am not prohi-
bitionist. like freedom.
From Senator w. L. Hollister, of Aus.
tin: Yours received and contents noted.
In reply would say there is light fall OF
snow, not sufficient for sleighing, hut
think there will be thaw soon.
From Hon. John Frank, of LIE Roy:
am so far entirely independent. The
Window men voted against ME because
they claimed was Dunnell man. The
Dunnell men voted against me because
was O Window man. The prohibition
men voted against me because I was q
liberal; and the liberals voted against me
for being in favor of prohibition.
From Hon. Lewis T. Bell, of Hayward
can not give you any definite response
in regard to your questions, as matters
may turn up that I am not aware of now
From Hon. Ole Peterson, of Manches
ter: am elected as an independent, and
shall act 80. am not an advocate OF
sumptuary measures. l believe il the
republican party wants to maintain he1
prestige she must infuss new blood into
her veins.