Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1884-10-02
CHEEK.


Hon. John Haley has the check to
come North and promise his support to
annexation. He alleges as cause that
the debt is nearly paid, hence no division
of the same could now operate against the
scheme, He has to admit he opposed
annexation when in Congress. He has
to admit he opposed it when in the Idaho
Council, as late as 1881, but alleges that
things have changed since he took action.
Mr.. HALEY in the fall Of 1882 took the
stump in Ada county-he made several
speeches earnestly and violently opposing
annexation. He appealed to property
owners in Ada county, used harsh terms
against Singlser for plcdsing annexation.
No one could record himself stronger than
HALEY did in 1682--wo can prove all
this. We affirm that HALEY in 1882,
in his speeches did violently oppose an
nexation He stated the day before the
Democratic convention to a man in this
county that he was opposed to our measure
of annexation. We can bring forth the
man if desired. Why this sudden change
more remarkable than the conversion of
st. Paul2 Do the people believe that,
like st. Paul, he has suddenly seen new
light, or in truth became converted, we
wish this were 50. Mr.. HALEY is large
property owner in Ada county. Should
Northern Idaho be set off to Washington
Territory the capital at Boise would be
necessarily changed to some point South
like HALEY or Shoshone. Property in
Boise City as well as Ada county would
depreciate in value largely. OF course
the Statehood of Idaho would be hope
lessly deferred. Mr.. HALEY claims that
all the business men of Boise will support
him, Of course they will. Is it possible
that with the large property interests Of
Mr. HALEY in Ada county and his re-
peated record on this subject that he
will work for our interests. Geo. Ainslie
in his record in Congress in 1872 was
against US. His record was no more re-
cent than HALEY, with equal degree of
candor Ainslie, in the fall of 1882, might
have come north and pledged support Of
our measure, but Ainslie did not have the
cheek to come on any such purpose and
allowed himself to stand on his record.
He knew no could not make anybody
believe he had changed his mind or
would keep his pledges. Ainslie did not
have so much property interests in the
South and could better afford to endorse
our measure than Haley.
Mr.. HALEY points out how helpless a
Delegate is in Congress, says he may not
accomplish his purpose, but will do all he
can. Is tins the way he Is to fail in his
pledges2 Does he expect by inactivity
not to hasten annexation, which if accom-
plished would lessen his property value?
Docs he wish us to understand that a
Delegate is powerless? If SO why have a
Delegate at all? No, gentlemen of North
Idaho, Mr.. HALEY will net work for our
interests. lie has no heart in it, better
take carpet Dagger with no property
who will have no motives or interests
against our interests, than such man as
HALEY. Singiser had tho courage to
stand out for us when the measure was
unpopular. But for Singiser no men or
party south would dare espouse our cause
to-day, we are indebted to him for the
seeming f vorable sentiment in the South.
Shall we, because Of the name of party,
divide and play false to our first friend
South?