Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-09-23
oally pOST.IETElLIGENCER.
TuE AN>ExAIIo> atksffeN N
fBAHO.


We remarked the other day.in advert
ise to the political situation IN Idaho
that one of tie main points at issue I'D
thstTerritory was tbs Norman question:
the Rennbl;can candidate for Delegate
and the platform Of that party being out
snokenly hostile to Mormonism With Its
polvoamic creed, and tue Democr'tlc
candidate being supported by all toe
Normon voters in the Territory. There
ia however. another and quite as i'm
p,r,ant topic of public discussion I'd
Idaho in the present canvas. toVit; that
NJ annexing the northern portion OF
that Territory to this in the event OF oar
Admiration AZ a State. The sentiment 10
this Territory in favor Of such annexa
ton il. if We are to Do guided by the
OSCILLATIONS % both political conVen-
tons. unanimous. Il has never changed
since the convention of 1873 and the
vota thereon. So far a. Washington 10
eonoerned her citizens stand with open
arms 10 welcome North Idaho within
the boundaries of what we all believe
will soon be one Of the most promising
in the whole sisterhood of States.
rhe Republican party OF Idaho u
with "a upon this question. The Terri
torial Convention of that party en-
grated In its platform a plank indoors
ing anutxation, and placed her esndi
date sauarely before the people on That
issue. This il an expression from the
Reuublicans of that Territory never be-
fore made. Two years ago, ho Sever.
the people practically expressed TIER
sentiments upon the question by elect
ing as Delegate Mr.Singiser, Sho made II
the issue in his canv 49, and was elected
by over 300 majority. He has been re-
nominated. and will undoubtedly be re
turned TO Congress.
The Democratic Convention in Idaho
recently nominated for Delegate John
HALEY. whose record has always been
against annexation, and who supported
a defeated candidate two years ago who
was also openly opposed to the cession
of North Idaho to Washington. Two
wears ago there was practically bat one
opinion in North Idaho upon the ques
ton; Democrats, forgetting or ignoring
for the occasion oil partisan feeling,
gave their votes 10 the Republican nom
inee, deeming, and correctly, that the
question OF annexation was superior in
Importance TO any temporary partisan
success. The question is, With Idaho
at least. purely local one; and II we
may Judge from the tenor OF our Idaho
exchanges the result of two years ago
ia TO he repeated this fall. La this day
and under present conditions 1t Is ex-
tremely difficult to whip the rank and
file of a political party into the traces
upon questions local in effect II not
local in character. The Republican
party in this Territory is to-day feeling
the effect of antagonizing the interests
of a large portion of its membership IN
regard to land grant forfeiture, and 1t is
not treason to the party TO call attention
TO the fact. Many a man will ask him
self this question: II 1900 Democrats
Of Northern Idaho repudiate their party
"a.
hostile to their best wishes aud desires.
what is my duty when NV best interests
are ieopsrdizsd and nv wishes ignored
by the party to which belonGG IL is
perplexing question to many. and one
which every man must decide for him.
salf. No party whip will be of any use.
Men vote from convictions, ana these
are not whipped into the brains OF
electors