St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-04-07

uraily with the weaker company-"the
under dog in the fight;;" my judgment
told me that competing line would be
better for the Red river valley; but the
contest did not concern my section OF
the state: had none of the "pine land"
or Hompe's "principles." and really
cared very little which corporation won.
But Hompe was dreadfully in earnest.
He says:
GAS further safeguard we posted
pickets to challenge every bill reported
from the house," etc.
Military Tactics.
This gives the matter quite military
air. The artillery, l suppose, was in
the committee rooms, and the cavalry in
the Manitoba Offices. But who paid for
all this high strategy? And why was
Hompe so dreapfully Jealous to keep a
competing line out of the territory
which he represented in the senate. and
which he wants to represent some day
in congress? He has just told us that
the Manitoba company beat the bill in
the senate in the previous session ''by
the lavish use of money! and that it
Ibid not desire a competitor for the
u duC VI illC llCQ lifCl w ID ~
i'm the same frame of mind in 1872 Or
had it turned it's back on itself? And
who furnished the principle" SO dear
to H0mpe's heart, in competition with
the shabby pine lands, which might be
only jack pine after all?
SO voted first to suspend the rules,
and then | voted against suSpendlng
them; there was, in this. the inconsst-
eney OF difference, and not the con-
Sistency Of dishonesty. Ii had been
bought either way, as H0mpe charges,
should have stuck it out, as H0mpe
did, to the end. l felt in fact like the
old lady when her husband and the-bear
were fighting Really" said she. ''if
| had my winters wood chopped l
wouldn't care darn which whipped!'
had great many other things to
think about. But. if | had been SEN
at0r from the Red River valley, and
aware of the afflicted condition OF the
poor people of that section, | should
not have ''posted pickets" to guard the
interests Of Jim HIPS Octopus; but L
should have torn my shirt and my hair,
and made Rome howl" with my in
slstance that the weak struggling road,
which was crawling slowly through the
sand-barrenS and the whorthleherry
Swamps. towards the wheat garden Of
the Northwest. should have fair
chance to make live" of it.
But there are those who Shrewdly suS-
pect that in 1889 Hompe was really on
the side of the Duluth d Winnipeg CON-
pa1y, although he voted against it. 1t
will be remembered that Hompe, in his
attack on me. says, speaking OF the
passage Of that bill, in 1889:
The bill passed the house, OF which
| was member, in spite Of all we could
do, by large majority"
Let us see what the ''all we could do"
amounted to. A well-poSted member of
that house writes me, after reading
Hompe'S letters:
WORK of BOOdlers.
The booIlers had performed their
work we'll. Hou. john b. Iiompe voted
with the minority. But the extent Of
his opposition consisted in simply vOt-
ing no! Why did not this blatant re-
former, this incorruDtiDle statesman,
this modern Cincinnatus. rise i'll his
place. and, in clarion tones, deEounce
the Ubiquitous steal? II it mad been a
proposition to increase the compensa-
ton of delicate little page, the sole
support of widowed mother, Hompe
woald have made the welkin ring with
Ill DiObCOliliS tiiC
needless expenditure of the peoples
money. But he was as silent as the
grave. He voted no. and his record is
straight. The silence of such man as
HOmpe, on measure involving the
title to millions of acres of land. was
worth more to the promoters of the
scheme than the votes of half a dozen
less conspicuous men. Speech IS sill
vern; silence is golden
but, later on, Hompe did open his
mouth against the Duluth & Winnipeg.
1t is well known that the Manitoba com
pany made no effolt to defeat the Du-
luth q Winnipeg bill ia the house. 1t
relied on the senate to kill the bill, and
it was not disappointed. After the de-
feat of the bill in the senate by the
lavish use Of money a bill passed that
body declaring the lands in question
forfeited to the state. This was Nah
itoba measure for the purpose of cir
cunuenting the Duluth d Winnipeg.
1t came before the house late In the
session, and members who had sucked
the Duluth 81 Winnipeg orange dry
changed front and declared themselves
in favor of forfeiture. One member
from the southern part OF the state
who had previously acted with the
Duluth d Winnipeg people received Il
500 bride to vote for forfeiture, but OH
a threat of exposure he refunded the
money and returned TO his old aileg
lance. Several members who had OPP
posed the Duluth & Winnipeg all along
became so disgusted with the sudden
conversions that they refused to vote
for forfeiture. 1t was at this junclure
that Mr.. Hompe mustered up courage to
say word or two, i'll halt-hearted
manner, In favor of forfeiture aliu
against the Duluth d Winnipeg"
Now. of these matters | know moth
ing personally. not having been mem
Der of the Legislature at that session:
but l have every confidence i'll the
veracity of my informant, whose re-
spect for Hompe is in inverse ratio to
his intimate knowledge OF him.
Meat Combine.
One of the crying evils of which our
farmers complain is Armour ~ Co. S
''meat combine" 1t bias reduced the
price OF cattle throughout our entire
country, while the price Of meat TO the
people OF the cities is not reduced, the
profits going into the pockets of the Biz
Four 1t is a dreadful and ruinous
monopoly. In 1889 the whole West WAS
excited upon the subject. a confer
ence was called atSt. Louis "to consider
the interests of stock growing and in
L. l., q, 81 e