Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1886-10-14
REPLY OF THE BOISE REPUBLI-
CAN

CAN.
In response to an eoterrogatory the
TELLER put to the editor Of the Boise
Republican, regarding Hailey's speech
IN Boise City, We have received the fol-
lowing through the columns of the
Republican. This is the language Of
the answer:
"The language as near as We can
recsllect, was that he had, in accordance
with his pledge, introduced and got a
hill through the House to have the
Northern counties set off to Washington
Territory, but the north got frightened
for fear it would be done, and sent in
circumstances When he became sat
i,fied that the bill in the form it had
passed the House, did not suit the people
of the north, he saw the cha rman of the
Senate committee and asked that action
upon the bill be postponed. He also
said that the question was now forever
settled-it had ceased to be an issue
Mr.. McKern, of your section, was pre-
sent at the meeting and spoke, but did
not, as far as our recollection serves us,
allude to the segregation question
Neither one of the parties have adopted
the plank this year, and the general i'm
preston is that the issue is dead"
There is quite difference between
this and his first report, and he now says
he gives "thc language as near as We can
recoilect." There is quite a difference
between his saying that che had stopped
its passage" aud saying that he had
"asked that action upon the bill be
postponed" The one would imply that
the bill was about to pass and that he
had storped it and the other would imply
that he simply asked that it be postpone
ed, for further light upon the facts, about
the North becomin, frightened without
saying that he thus stopped its passage.
The facts are that 10 the first case he is
made to say that he "stopped its passage"
thus taking upon himself the response,
bility of killing the bill, the other means
that he asked temporary postponement
for further light, SO that he could have
the bill SO changed as to suit facts, if any
change was necessary to meet the wishes
OF the people Of the North. There
seems to be nothing in this speech as
corrected to show that HALEY acted as a
dictator to the chairman of the Senate
committee or that he wanted to m,srep-
resent the wishes of his constituents in
North Idaho, or ever delayed them be,
You'd the adjournment OF congress. But
ae simply desired to find out, when the
people had got frightened and gone back
in their desire for annexation, as had
been represented to him, aud the result
of the democratic endorsement of his acts
in urging the bill in the House, and the
reimbursement Of the question by the
people of the North, and their vote for
him in November will disprove to him
that the North had become frightened
and gone back on the issue, and will
strengthen his position TO urge the
Senate committee, MT to further post.
pone action in favor of the passage of
the bill, when congress reassembles. and
what he said in his letter of the 25th of
March long after the passage Of the bill
in the House, twice published in the
TELLER, when he says: both political
parties agreed for the North to 90 to
w. T., and l shall keep my promise by
trying to get them annexed to w. IT,,
unless a majority Of those in the North
say in writing over their own signatures
that they have changed their minds
and prefer to remain in Idaho, which l
presume they are not likely to do. as the
opposition sent here from the North
against annexation to W T., up to this
time, is very light, except the Montana
movement in Murray. I don't think
that will amount to much or at least
have no sympathy with their move. "
We believe he will honestly endeavor to
have this done in behalf annexa ion to
Washington, and to believe the statement
Of his speech, made by forgetiul repor
ter in the Republican, We cannot, and
prefer to hear it form his own lips, with
his own narration Of the circumstances
and explanation of his meaning in full.