St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-09-26
reasonably clear that t; ; profits on
wheat are not made boz. Mime
apolis and Liverpool"

neer in its nlne-coumn defense asserted
the following facts:
First That there is not and has not
been wheat combine.
SecOnd-That the Republican party
has given the state laws to prevent the
rascalty complained of.
Iblrd-That if there Is Or has been
combine" its existence has nothing to
do with the Republican party.
These claims are somewhat conflict
| ing. The fact that a combine exists has
been proven to the satisfaction OF every
| reasonable man by the minority report
OF Hon. E. j. Moore and by the letters
| and kilograms that have been published
| in the last few days by the GLOBE.
The statement that the state has laws
against some of these evils is true, as
asserted by the Pioneer Press.
1t is also true that these laws have not
| been enforced.
1t is fact that the officers charged
with the enforcement of them are all
| Republicans, and they stand in high
favor with the party. The chief grain
| inspector, Mr.. CIausen, was member
| of the convention which nominated Mr.
| Nelson, and to him more than any other
man does tie candidate owe his unani-
nous nomination. Under the circum-
stances, Is there any possibility that Mr..
| Nelson, if elected. will turn down or
cause the railroad commission to turn
down MIR. Clausen? Not at all.
Is This Violation Of Lave
Section of the general railroad and
warehouse laws of Minnesota provides
that the person receiving license to
conduct all elevator business must file a
bond of not less than $4,000. nor more
than $4,000, for each warehouse, con-
| ditioned on the faithful performance of
| his duty as public warehouseman, and
his full ana unreserved compliance with
all the laws Of this state in relation
| thereto.
Section IA of this act defines one of
| these laws, which declares that it shall
not be lawful for any public warehouse
man to mix any grain of different grades
| together, or to select different qualities
OF the same grade. for the purpose Of
storing OF delivering the same; nor
shall he attempt to deliver grain of one
grade for another: Or, in any way tam
| per with grain while in his possession
or custody, with the view of securing
any profit to himself or any other person.
That no regard whatever is paid by
| the elevators to this law Is evidenced in
half dozen instances in the course of
these pages. the most notable of which
! is the direct and so far uncontradicted
! evidence OH. S. Holcomb, that G. A.
| PillSbury told him not to mix wheat
that was to be loaded out for Pilisbury
d CO., but to skin" everything else
and raise all grades possible.
What could be more direct violation
of the law than this? Why, if the rail
road and warehouse commissioners are
not dominated by the enormous moneyed
interests of the wheat handlers, did
"a In n ira inf ho
charges of Holcomb? Those charges
were brought directly to their attention,
but nothing whatever was done.
The statement OF Z. G. Wolc0tt is also
direct and convincing IN the letter writ
ten from Sutherland, Fla, March "a,
1892, wherein he shows that wheat
weighed less according to the weights
of the state weighmasterS than 1t did
according to the weights of others
equally as well vouched for. But more
important yet was the discovery that
1.-THE state weie hmaster's certificates Oh
the wheat out of the Union elevator and
the state weighmaster's certificate on
the same wheat into the st. Anthony
elevator, showed much less wheat in the
cars in one case than in the other"
The leakage was fixed decisively and
beyond question upon the state weigh
master in 1856. Holcomb was then out
of the elevators employ, and his alb
sence evidently did not stop the steal
ing. The logic is unanswerable that,
If the Republican party is responsible
for its agents, as it must undoubtedly
be, that party is the one which must
answer to the farmer for this unQues-
tionabie system of plumber and rob-
berry.
Is This Law Enforcede
A political party in control of the law
is required to enforce that law, and its
failure to do so should be remembered
at the polls when the question presented
! is as momentous and vital a one as is
the prosperity of class of such size
and Importance as the farmer.
Were the Republican government of
Minnesota not under the control and
| dominion of the wheat ring; were it not
of the utmost importance that the ring
should have its aid in successfully evad-
| ing the consequences of its bold
and constituencies disregard of ali
| law and justice; were the leaders of the
| wheat combine not liberal contributors
| to maintain in power the Republican
Officeholders who know they cannot be
elected without this powerful aid, and
were the Republican party in earnest in
| its proteStatlons of an interest in the
farmers welfare. there would be- no
IIOuOiS III UlCdhlllS w GIIS duudCsUuS
combination. If the Republican gov
ernmentaI machinery had been set In
motion the parties who directly violated
| the law as to mixing wheat would have
! been punished.
If the REPUBLICAN party of Minnesota
| is not responsible for the doings of the
| combine, in that it does not use its
power and influence tip break it up, can
1t explain why the principals in the
| great wheat ring belong to and owe
| their political honors to its conventions.
| The Pills5uryS and the Washburns and
! others have grown rich in the wheat
business. One of the Pillsbury family,
John S. Pillsbury, was governor of the
| state for two terms, elected by that
| party. The Republican party also
made John S. PillSbury and G. A. Pills
| bury state senators for several terms. 1t
| has been said by G. NJ. Amsden that the
| Pillsburys had all the money they
wanted, and cared for nothing now but
| political honors.
| When a great party finds itself in the
position that the Republican party of
Minnesota is today, there is but one
course open to it. The organization
Wust BE Purged
of the unfaithful or the party must &C
| cept defeat. But this is not the way
the Minnesota Republican ringsters do
business: by no means. They depend
on the people voting for the party be-
cause of their prejudices, and even after
| an exposure they hesitate not to nom
mate man for office. A good example
| of this was in the nomination of H. w.
| Childs for attorney general. Mr. Childs
was hardly known throughout the state
| until he championed the elevator side
of the wheat investigation, when his
duty to the people pointed the other
way.
Many Republicans wondered why
| this clerk should have been nominated
over men like .'Nate'' Kingsley, Dan
| w. Bruckart, Frank Wilson and Willis
Sawyer, but Messrs. Pillsbury, Graves.
! Ripley and the other members of the
wheat ring could have told the reason
| univ