Lewiston teller. [volume] (Lewiston, North Idaho) 1878-1900, 1888-01-26
Was Dubois Double Tongued in the
Canvass for Delegate?

Was Dubois Double Tongued in tn
Canvass for Delegate?
This is matter OF moment to tn
people of Idaho, aud particularly o
North Idaho, as Indicating the sentimen
upon the question Of annexation. If HI
acted double in the canvass, telling thu
people he would favor annexation, il
one section of the North, and the people
in another that he would oppose, and in
another that he would neither favor OF
oppose, but would merely represent the
wishes Of each section without advocating
the views of either or any, and induce
them to send representative men &c
Washington to speak for them on this
question, and he has and will keep his
pledges, then he is not to be blamed if
the people elected him. but if he secured
his election upon pledges of one policy
he should follow in one place, and upon
pledges of different policy in another,
and still different in another, then he
was fraudulent in his professions to the
people, and when he is fally exposed, he
canuot blame the people if they charge
him with deception in securing their
votes. lie has represented us to the
Salt Lake Tribune as follows: III
made my canvass in 1886 for delegate to
congress, openly, with non division as one
of the chief planks in my platform Of
principles, and won." That he won
there can be no doubt, else he would not
be in congress to-day, but that he made
non division one Of the chief planks in
his platform, in all parts of the territory,
is not SO apparent to all. That the an
noxationists of the North gave him bis
400 majority in the territory, no one
who examined the returns can deny, for
in Ncz Perez county, alone, hundreds of
annexationists voted for him, enough to
give him his election, end at the same
lime they voted for annexation; while,
as be says, his plank was non-division.
Either. they we're deceived about his
principles Or they were very inconsistent
in voting for a man opposed to anuexa.
,ion. The Mirror, published at Mos.
COW, in the heart Of NczsPerce county,
says: ave will say to the readers Of
the Mirror, that out of Mr.. Dubois
own mouth will we condemn him.
When he was here in Moscow, fseeking
our votes, he publicly said thata he was
in favor Of annexation and left his writ
ten bond to that effect. Now he saws
that opposition to annexation, was one of
his principles at that time. Dubois per-
petrated a brazen, open.faced falsehood
upon the people Of Moscow when he told
them that he would hot oppose unnexu
tion. He now indirectly tells them that
Mt that time he uttered a lic." Either
the Mirror now tells the truth, or it does
not, but one thing is evident, he must
have fiattered them with some promise
to induce large majority. of the 400
voters of the Moscow precinct to vote for
him, when all but six Of these voters
cast their vote for annexation. We ,
think that it is due to the people Of
Moscow, that the Mirror give to the
publica true and literal cory or version I
'f that bond or pledge that was made to
he people Of Moscow, to induce thei, !,
'otc, that as annexationists, they may DO I
against the chsrge of great {
inconsistency and bad faith towards the
'ause Of annexation. In the Lewiston =
precinct Mr.. Dubois bord, which we
hen published, was different. If Dubois
deceived the Moscow precinct, in ordc,
Q get votes, it is fair inference that
'e did SO in other precincts in the COUNTY
ind that he gained his..election by decep- c
ion IN other annexation precincts. The
Whole matter now rests with the state. h
nents of the Mirror, whether Dubois =
las lied. If he has lied to secure votes
Or his election, the people of the North a.
'ould be entitled to know the facts and q
ave the proof. 1t is a question of u
'uch moment that they know whether 81
hey have liar to represent them In
ongress or man of his word. We had
opposed that he was to be believed. l
"Camas prairie is now bottled up and n