The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1890-06-13
FUNSTON AND rREE ORES.

/ Inc HUM hEtiSTEh says t1db IL uOcs
not agree with the representative OF
the Second district in the matter OF
free ores. That it thinks he was
wrong i'm voting for the Argentine
smelter. That such vote was not in
the interests of the farmers of the Sec
ond district. These are not the words
used by the REGISTER, but the sub
stance of an editorial. Now Scott, Is
it not fact, as you well know, that
yourself and Mr.. Funston agreed fully
upon that poiut up to within week
of the time the question came up i'm
congress? Is it not fact that your
friend the congressman changed his
mind on the subject, made speech
and voted for free ores when he had
declared himself opposed to that meas
ure less than a month before? Is it
not fact within your knowledge that
Mr.. Funston was opposed to free ores
until the lobby from Argentine reach
ed Observation-Disclosures Journal.
1t affords us great pleasure to an
swer the above questions categorically
and we trust the Journal will be just
enough to publish the replies.
/. We do not know whether Mr..
Funston eper agreed with us on the
question of Mexican ores. We had
no communication with him on the
subject whatever until week or more
after it had come up i'm the House,
when, in letter relating mainly to
other things, he incidentally observed,
"As to Mexican ores, think If you
would regard them as furi,,g ores you
would take the same view as to their
admission free as I do"
3. As stated in the foregoing, we do
not know whether Mr.. Funston chang
ed his mind on the subject or not.
We never heard him say he was OPP
posed to free ores and we never saw
any statement to that effect i'm any
letter or newspaper.
8. 1t is not fact within our knowl-
edge that Mr.. Funston was opposed
to free ores until the lobby from Ar
gentine reached Washington. We
were aware, from newspaper COM
ment, at least month before the final
vote was taken, that Mr.. Funston
would favor free Mexican ore, but we
had no communication with him what
ever on the subject except as above
stated. SO far as our personal knowl-
edge goes he may have been always
i'm favor of free ores.
Those are our anwers and we hope
they are sufficiently full and explicit.
OF course, the insinuation behind all
these questions is that Mr.. Funston
deliberately sacrificed his principles
at the behest of the Wyandotte Smelt-
er. And on that point we desire to
ask the Journal few questions, and
we hope its answers will be as direct
and unequivocal as ours have been.
1. Do you know personally and pos
itively that Mr.. Funston erer favored
tariff on Mexican ores? If yes, state
the source of your information.
2. Do you know personally and pos
itively that the Wyandotte lobby was
compelled to pledge Mr.. Funston po-
litical support or other valuable con-
sideration to secure his vote for free
ore? If yes, state the source of your
information.
3. Is it not a fact that Mr.. Nor
ril and Mr.. Kelley, of the First and
Fourth Districts respectively, voted
with Mr.. Funston for free ores.
4. Do you accuse them, in doing so,
of having corruptly bartered their
principles?
5. Does the fact that 15,O 900 of his
constituents were directly interested
in the admission of free ores and earn
estly petitioned him to secure it, make
Mr.. Funston's vote any more culpable
than the votes of Mr.. Morrill, and Mr..
Kelley whose constituents were not
interested?