The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-04-03
IDAHO'S GOVERNOR
He Says the Labor Unions Prefer
a Standing Grievance.
1T MET HIS HEARTY APPROVAL"
The Shoshone K of L. Assembly Gets the
Governor in Box, With the Lid
Closed Down.

BELLEVUE, Idaho, March 81. 1S92.-lSpe-
cial correspondence of THE SUNDAY HER
AID. THE following correspondence fur
nished The HERALD representative by per-
mission of Shoshone Assembly No. $50,
knights of Labor is about self expiana-
tory.
But it shows how an official and polite
inquiry of regularly organized labor or
ganlzation is received by the honored gov
ernor of Idaho The correspondence below
is complete in itself, save that the names
of the officers of Shoshone Assembly are
omitted.
This matter is opened by the inquiry of
the assembly as follows:
THE INQUIRY.
STATE OF IDAHO.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
BOISE CITY, Ida, Jan. 49, 1892
----, Secretary Shoshone Assem-
bly, NO. 1910, Knights of Labor.
DEAR SIR:-I am in receipt of your favor of
the 10th inst.
l 40 not quite understand it's motive My veto
OF II. B. 70 was based upon the indetniteness of
the appropriation. With the general objects Of
the BILL was fully in accord, as 1 stated, it
met my hearty approval" There was plenty
OF time to have passed good bill if the labor
men had desired, but they seemed to prefer
having standing grievance
have not much acquaintance with Mr.
Mathews, but he is highly recommended by a
large number OF the leading citizens of Bling
nam county as suitable man for the place
So far as any assumption of power is con-
ceTned, may say that the constitution seems
to devolye the duty OF making this appointment
upon the governor instead OF the labor unions.
Very respectfully, NORMAN b. WILEY,
Governor.
ANOTHER PROTEST.
SHosHoNE, Ida, Feb. 10, 1892.
orman B. Wiley, Governor Boise Citv Ida !.
DEAb SIR-Replying to your favor of January
10, referring to the communication to which
your letter of January 10 is reply Won saw: siT
do not quite understand it's motiVen TO re-
move this misunderstanding on your part we
would say the communication was sent YOU as
protest against your action in appointing to
an office, the duties of the person to occIlnv
said Office not having been defined nor the sal
airy prescribed by legislative enactment: this
too, in view OF The fact that you by reason oi
the power vested in you officially, killed bill
intended to establish that office, defining the
duties and prescribing the compensation Of the
incumbent.
Now, let US look al the matter as 1t really an
pears in the light OF your action. The reason
given for your disapproval in the veto message
was the indeiniteness Of the appropriation.
1t seems difficult 10 understand how this could
be made ground for disapproval as the bill
LIN
annum, the bill also carrying $500 per annum
for travelling expenses of tue commission. to-
gether with stationery, printing and Supplies
for the office.
You speak of being fully in accord with the
general objects of the bill, il meeting with vo,r
hearty approval" 1t occurs 10 us this is a
most strange way of expressing ones hearty
approval OF a matter = approving of il so
strongly as TO cause its death.
You say there was plenty of time to have
passed o good bill if the labor men had desired
but they seemed to prefer having standin9
grievance. I" If you will kindly turn to page ia
house journal, OF the late session. at bottom of
page, you will find that Mr.. Munroe did. on
March g. 1891. reintroduce substitute for IT
b. 3d. as house bill 100. On the preceding page
is your veto message. Now, If you will turn To
page $50, session of March Z, you will find there
that the bill passed the house with the 1itie
approved on that date. On March 7. senate
Journal page 1873, shows it was transmitted tn
the senate and there killed-not by the labor
men, but by men who seem to prefer that labor