Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1892-01-25
Idaho, on conditions that North Idaho

Idaho, on conditions that North Idaho
get the two short term Senator'S
which proposal Mr.. Clagett uncere.
noniously rejected.
Mr.. Price also quotes the cores
pondencc between Messrs. Clas EFT,
Mcconnell and DeLamar, on the one
side, and Messrs. Shoup and Dubois,
On the other. in which the former pro.
posed that one Senator be elected from
North Idaho and one from South
Idaho, tie third Senator not to be
elected until after the two first elected
should have reached Washington and
drawn for the long term. To this
Messrs. Shoup aud Dubois, disclaiming
any right to speak for their party,
proposed caucus Of the Republican
IN. mbers Of the Legislature and the
five Senatorial aspi.arts. To this
Messrs. C!agett, Mcconnell, aud
DeL.amar replied by proposing a con-
ference the action of which should not
''be binding upon the perfect freedom
Of any one who may attend"
Mr.. Price then goes on:
Such then were the conditions and
factors of the problem with which the
Republican ma ority in the Legislature
had to deal. A majority divided into
three miuori,i-s. We submit that
the only proper me- thod OF resolving
the differences was, as proposed by
Messrs. Dubois and Shoup, to turn
the whole matter over to caucus,
and for all concerned, in good faith, to
abide the result Of the party delibera-
tons. Such n course would be char.
acterizrd by eminent fairness, and be
IN accord with almost universal prsc-
tice. Outside of purely personal
preferences and the estimate of fitness
of the candidate entertained BY the
members, there were no real dif>
fercnces.
The pretense that there is spec ial
need CT u Senator from North Idaho
to "proteet" its peculiar local interests
will find no favor among Senators.
The thing involved was at most a
question Of policy and the details and
methods of carrying it out. The diff.
Guilty was that Mr.. Clage,t assumed
authority to direct this policy to his
own advantage aud took upon him
self the arrangement OF the details.
II the north had gone into caucus
and in good faith urged its claim for a
Senator, not in the interests OF indi-
vidual candidates, upon whom they
were divided, it cannot be doubted
that with the combined votes of those
who demanded it and those who were
wiling to accord it, they could have
accomplished result which would
have left no room for complaint. !,
is not pretended that this result would
have satisfied Mr. Clagett, for it
might not have elected him to the
Senate for six years. Indeed it might
not have elected him at all. Az i,
was, the result WAS satisfactory on all
hands, except to contestant and his
immediate friends.
So mu,h for Mr.. Dubois alleged
violation of the State platform.
We submit that tie facts acquit him
of this charge.
We say I! at these tlirgs prove be-
yond argument that Mr., C'agett's
claims, that he was at any time dis
interes,e':ly making a struggle for
North Idaho, and for the preservation
of his party in the State, ia the greats
est pr.tense OF all. The idea of using
the Democratic minority in the I.egis-
lature to preserve the Republican
party from dissolution is moi alone
original; it is unique. For brilliant
suaacity, it has not been para!leltd
since the time that Moses found it
necessary to announce the law against
Slowing kids in their mothers milk.
Contestants views at the time Of
the election as to Tuesday. December
10, being the proper time or otherwise
for the election of Senator for the
term in question may be probably
compared with the ground of confess,
now assumed that the 10Th Of Decem-
her was the first and not the second
Tuesday after the organization Of the
Legislature. Not that his change Of
view would change the fact. but as
showing necessity to create a con
structtve fact to meet the exiecnce of
"a changed condition. If contestant
or any of his friends had any no,ion
that the l6.h was not the second