The Dillon tribune., 1886-10-15
who differ With II ~

This is what We said: at being indcpcr,
dent. u .:p,I ret IN Tire least ,rRnHr0'"Hs
sin urHtyu' the TElE, NE trusts etc"
THE Gnlct in Il column article under
the caption What Are WEI convinced
every body that it had l,rolonuced GOA.
undrum which. no one could answer
Then why should the E',amine,' make Il
fool OF itself in trying to answer it:
"'But rs matter O! fact we are a rtpub-
lican who reserves the right Of voting for
the best candidate where no principle i, in
VOWED.
Well, what OF it: Does the above Quo.
tation prove that we are democrat:
"'For county c!licers the Jjihnur will
vote Tor those it considers the best men. re-
CARELESS politics.
And it will continue 50 to vote.
"We think the platform is invulnerable
at every point
II the Examiner does not think that the
republican platform !, invulncrah'e. If that
paper i, not altogether Il ''blowhart,' let 1t
attack the platform.
If the Examiner will turn to the THtn.
vNE OF Aug. 18th, i, will see that we COM
mented unfavorably On the democratic
platform. 1t will find in the THuHr>E Of
Sept. ID, its opinion OF the Free Trade De.
mocracy and in the issue OF Sept. 10, III an
editorial that seems to be a conundrum to
the mighty genius o.! the Examiner, may
be found the following sentence 1--WE sub.
NIT that nothing we have written is even
tinctured with democratic doctrinc."
"'As the Tribune does not depend for
support upon campaign funds it refuses to
be q '''uotlick' for any party
And refuses still. But how man. dol.
lars did the Hon. Joseph Browne give the
Examiner, after the democratic nc,nina.
tons were made: Please answer.
The Examiner now quotes US as advo-
eating the endorsement Of Tom Jones by
the Republican Committee. We did, and
if Mr.. Neil's place b. any accident were to
become vacant, we would again advocate
the endorsement Of Tom Jones. Blu, the
Contra! Committee did not take our ad.
vice. 'IHH is the Examiner going 10 ito
cltm IT. Is it going TO hurt the Commit.
tee:
"Wlly does il not continue its support Of
herif JONES' whom everybody knows to
be superior to his almost wholly unknown
opponent:
Why does the Examiner Try to injure
Tom Jones candidature BY continually
dragging his name into print: Has it Sc.
cretly betrayed him as it has Pickett:
But if Jones opponent is 'almost wholly
unknown" how can "eycrybo know any.
thing about him: We say elsewhere who
he is.
"'TaAing it as whole it is 4 strong
ticket, and it will require some tall rustling
10 beat it,"
lit will not require some tall rustling to
beat it, what is the Examiner here for:
The Examiner winds up its long yarn
land itself BY referring to the ticket at the
head ot Our columns. 1t knows that we
were waiting for the blanks Oh that ticket
to be filled before placing it in our columns.
We trust that the "otfer dccoction'' will
be somewhat stronger and "straighter"
than the one in Wednesdays issue, which !
is as weak as the GLUCOSE" upon which
The Examiner feeds its candidates.
AS the Examiner refused to answer the !
questions that we asked some time ago, we !
nave but one question to ask in this con.
action: Why should the Examiner con.
sumo over column Of its valuable space
IN writing itscl down an ass, when every.
'ne is already aware Of the fact: