Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-08-28
DAILY ST.INTEluGENCER.
.e1 sgCT1osAL NoR SELFISH.

IL appears bUSoinsSAJ
pretending the proposition that q CON
test may be made for the success OF :
principle without grinding the axe OF
some aspiring politician We nave
studiously avoided shampioning the
eause or claims OF any individusi
named or even suspected Of desiring
the Republican nomination for Dele
cate TO Congress. This course has been
pursued, not because We are not aware
that several estimable and competent
gentlemen would accept such an honor
and trust at the hands OF the party, out
because We believe that the principles at
stake in the approaching Convention
and campaign are Of 20 great import
anoe al TO outweigh all personal feelings
or interests. We are in favor Of certain
principles, and desire not only TO see
them announced by the Republican
Convention, but that a nominee shall be
selected upon whose integrity, capabil
ity and industry the party and people
of this Territory can rely, and who will
use his utmost endeavor 70 give them
practical effect. In brief, We believe
that in the approaching Convention the
interests and fortunes OF any and all
candidates should be subordinated TO
the vital questions upon which the Re
publican party is called TO take clearly
defined position. We are opposed IL
detail and in general TO all aspirants for
nomination az Delegate 10 Congress
who are in favor of the surrender Of the
public lands In this Territory to a rail
road corporation that has not earned
them. This has been the position Of
this paper from this first
The Argus Is the pronounced cham
pion, for the nomination, of gentle
man who, over his own signature, has
publicly declared himself opposed TO
the views we entertain and advocate,
Mr.. Bradshaw 10 on the railroad side OF
the controversy, "a he has right to be
This being true, we can hardly be ex.
pected 10 favor his nomination. We
are opposed to his candidacy because
bis ideas upon the forfeiture question
are, an we believe. hostile 10 the best in
terests, present and prospective, of this
Territory. Because Of these objections
the Argus goes into spasms and berstes
rs "a fellows:
The Seattle P.-I ID doing jast whai
might have been expected-expressiug q
preference for Mr.. Brents for Delegate
Instead of Mr.. Bradshaw. Its jealous
opposition to all Puget Sound candi
dates outside of King county mas carried
IL 10 sach an extreme that IL would pre-.
fer to sec the nomination go to Eastern
Washington again unless King county
can triumph. In this IL Is iliiberal, not
10 say hoggish. Before Mr.. Brents
first election Seattle had the Delegate
twice; her leading paper now argues
against letting the nomination come &c
Puget Sound again unless Seattle mar
gets IL. IL would seem TO fair. minded
person that the choice of the Puget
Sound delegates should be made the
choice of the convention this year; AND
Seattle doubtless thinks so too, only she
adds a proviso to the effect that the
man must be from her own limits. The
fairness y Of snch dog -in-the mangel
policy sticks out on all sides.
We think that the above screed would
be Justly considered idiotic were IL MOI
50 plainly malevoleAt. We. have nevel
expressed q preference for Mr.. Brentl
as Delegate except m a comparative de
gree. Upon the land grant question tn,
position taken by Mr.. Brents last winte
was considerably nearer correct thai
that assumed by Mr.. Bradshaw in BIZ
"open letter" Mr.. Brents advocated
the confirmation of the land grant or
the Cascade Branch to the Northern Pa
cific on two main conditions, towit
that the road should be completed
within two and half years from las
January, and that all agricultural LANE
received by the company for its con
struction should be sold to actual set
tiers at $500 per acre. Mr.. Bradshaw
proposes to allow the company unlim
tied time TO build its road. and suggest
no restrictions as TO the price at whicl
Its lands 90 earned shall be sold. Tn
hrst proposition recognizes that IT,
public has some rights In the matter
the latter absolutely ignores this idea
The arst Is compromise measure; th
latter is an out and out railroad propo
sition. We are opposed 10 both; but. a
between the two, prefer the lesser evi
Now az TO the question of locality
]. g., whence shall the candidate come
As matter OF local pride ID would b
pleasant 30 see Seattle man receiv
the nomination. As matter OF sec
tional justice-if there be such thin
In selecting an official who is 10 repre-
sent the whole Territory-it is Pues
Sounds turn TO receive the honor G
presenting candidate for the suffrage
Of the people Of Washington. We ha,
not less local nor sectional pride tina
any other journal; we are as tenaeiot
OF rights and privileges a. any othe
and will hRht As hard to assert an
maintain them, bat We are not pr,
pared 10 urge or support for nominl
tisn or election gentleman from wes
ern Washington solely or primarily G
that account. Other things being equs
the question OF locality would have il
huenoe. But IL IL h proposed TO drs
COON men and journals into supportir
persons for nomination who bold
principles antagonistic TO the publ
welfare, on the bare fact that they ii,
on this aide the Cascade range. We mu
be cousted cut. The effor, viii not /
successful. We would like to have
Seattle man nominated. 10 wuald /
pleasant 10 support gentleman hailir
from the Puget Sound Basin. Perhs,
We may be able 10 do both, bat IL ms
~ well be understood. once for all
and We hope the ArsHs will finally con
prehend this facs-tkat the main qaalii
cations Of candidate in our Judgment
hot where he was born, not where b