The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1894-05-18
f''fpia''<<r4*pr<s
ISSUED FRIDAY MORNING.
COUNTY AND CITY PAPER.
ia. WARDwELL. &C. THOMPSON
WARDWELL 4 THOMPSON,
TERMS, $500 PER ANNUM
FRIDAY. MAY IS, 1894.
SOME HAGGARD HAoERIsMs.

FRIDAY, MAY IS, 1894.
SOME HAGGARD HAGERIsMs.
Proving Grant IIagcr and friends
are not good republicans does not
make Mr.. LaMoure right. '-Timcs.
We have not attempted at any
time to prove Mr.. LaNIourc right or
wrong in voting for Mr.. Roachc. We
have repeated, time and again, the
point which Mr.. lIagcr always ig.
nores, which is, that the committee
had no right to select Mr.. LaMoure
as Il sacrifice when others equally
guilty were welcomed with open
arms. "Plcasc stick to the text"
Mr.. Hagcr.
But by receiving Mr.. IIagcr's own
logic, proving Mr.. LaMourc wrong
does not make the acts Of Mr.. Hager
and his friends right. and yet Mr..
Hagcr takes two columns of figures
to prove that republican candidates
have been cut in the first district and,
holds Mr.. LaMourc personally re.
sponsiblc for the cutting.
1T we admit for the sake of argu.
mcnt that both the first district and
the second district, have sometimes
shown Il preference for persons and
"favoritc sons," VIC find these i'm.
portant differences: That it has been
possiblc for some republican candi.
dates ON the state and Legislative
tickets to get majority in the first
district. That the difference be-
tween the st. Thomas candidate and
the "favoritc sons" of other towns /.
that the two or three preferred sons
of st. Thomas, though, of different
parties, always get elected, mostl,
through the influence of st. Thomas
politicians. who first manipulate the
convention. and then 30 into the
field with Il st. Thomas fusion
ticket, without reference to political
applications. For the truth of the
statement VIC need only to point to
results. With the incidental and nd.
ditional fact that the republican
party has been growing weaker and
the democratic party stronger in the
second district.
lin the first place Mr.. LaMOurc is
on trial" Beg pardon, but VIC don't
understand it SO. Mr.. LaMoure is
not ON trial. He was simply con.
dcmncd and dccapitatcd without
trial. So far as their newspaper dis.
cussion is concerned, it is the "first
district" that is on trial. We said,
and VIC say, that the first district. un.
der the leadership OF Mr.. LaMoure,
did better for republican candidates
than did the second district under
Mr.. llagcr.
The Times says because all can
didatcs did not receive the full vote
MIR. LaM0urc is to blame. That is
to say, if Mr.. LaMourc, or any one
else, could get man to vote for
Burke. but could not get him to vote
for johnson, then Mr.. LaMoure is
guilty of cutting johnson. Such nom
sense is hardly worth a reply, but it
may be noticed here that there was
a democratic candidate opposing MIR.
johnson, while there was no demo-
cratic opponent to Mr.. Burke, and
there are many democrats in the
first district, who by choice or per-
suasion voted for Burke in prefer.
encc to Shortrldge. The republicans
of the first district did what they
could to take advantage of this fact.
They do not think that they ought to
be blamed If they could not persuade
the democrats to swallow the whole
republican ticket. But over In the
second district, instead Of trying to
do something to the advantage OF
Burke or other republican candida ties,
the political labor seemed to be con-
fined to cutting candidates who
would not deliver their own localities
to st. Thomas on a vote for the blind
asylum, or who would not agree to
place the county money in St.
Thomas banks. For proof see re-
turns.
Let us again rccapitulatc the real
point of discussion. First, the first
district did better work for the re.
publican ticket, under the leadership
Of MIR. LaMourc than did the second
district under Mr.. IIager? 1t was an
insult to every republican in the first
district to have the appointment Of
Mr.. LaMourc's successor taken from
the county or legislative committee
and handed over to Mr.. Hager, or any
other man in another district.
Second: The condemnation BY the
state committee of Mr.. LaMourc, was
UNJUST and unfair unless Others
equally blameablc were condemned,
Third: That the condemnation of
Mr.. LaMOurc by the state committee,
did by logical INFERENCE, though the
opposite was expressed, condemn
every person who has voted for other
than republican candidates, and in.
cldentally, therefore, condemns Mr..
llagcr and his friends, who never
worked a straight ticket since 1855.
/ Now We believe the above arc clear
statements, and comprise in brief all
that the PIONEER EXPRESS has
argued in the matter. All we have
to add is the incidental proof fur.
nishcd by Mr.. Iager in reference ia
the last propositions:
"Thc editor of the PIONEER Elk.
PRESS has never liked St. Thomas
since 1856, when Thomas Lemon re.
ccivcd all the votes of this precinct
but q few scattering ones that went
to Wardwell.
eft 10 ~ xvol1 knnwr f.ut th.x ,x.,