Rodhuggeren. [volume] (Fergus Falls, Minn. ;) 1893-1898, 1894-10-09
The JOURNAL FINE
WORKER.

; nal badly, if we may judge by the
waysit seeks to divert attention
from Foss by attacking Congress.
man Boen. In the issue for Oct
9TH The Journal asks: "Can ii
I (Rodhuggeren) say nothing in
defence of Boen's act in voting
for the sugar and whisky trusts?"
| Mr.. Boen did not vote for the
sugar, or whisky trusts, and nc
one knows that better than the
Journal. Mr.. Boen voted for free
sugar, first in committee of the
whole, second when the Wilson
bill was passed, and third on
Auguit 18th on the free sugar bill
now pending in the Senate.
Mr.. Boen voted against the
whisky trusts whenever he had an
opportunity to do SO, as he has
always voted against the saloons
in this city. We presume the
wiley Journal man will justify his
statement by saying that Mr..
Boen voted for the Senate tariff
bill as it finally passed and be-
came law. That bill contained
thousands of items, som of them
good, some of them bad.
But neither Mr.. Boen, nor any
body else could separate the items
of the bill and vote for the good
ones and against the bad ones.
The bill had to be taken as whole
and voted on, for or against.
| The question to determine was
whether or not the bill was better
than the existing law. If the bill
was better than the Mckinley
law than it was Mr.. Boen's duty
to vote for it.; if worse than the
Nc cKinley law, it was his duty to
vote against it.
The income tax provision of
the bill was a populist measure
placed there chiefly through the
exertions Of Mr.. Pence from Co.
dorado and Mr.. Boen, and if the
bill had contained only that re-
deeming feature it would have
been Mr. Boen's duty to vote for
But the bill placed farm machi-
! merry, binding twine, etc. on the
free list, and made an average re-
duction of duties of 21.98 per cent
below that of the Mckinley law.
The Peoples party national plat
form practically ignores the tariff
as an issue and therefore the po-
pulist members were at liberty to
vote as they chose. While they
did not like the bill, they all voted
for it as they believed it to be
better than the old law.
Mr.. Boen's work in Congress
needs no defense from Rodhug-
geren or anyone else. The fact
that the Journal, which is owned
by bankers and railroad magnates,
assails our congressman is proof
to our mind that he has done his
full duty to the plain people who
sent him there.
The Journal attacks Mr.. Boen's
bill to issue one billion dollars
lawful tender paper money, but
forgets to mention his bills for abo-
fishing national banks; for abo-
fishing alien ownership of land;
for eradicating the Russian thistle,
etc. No, the Journal man knows
that he can not make any polical
capital out of those bills. He
hopes however to mislead the
people in regard to the first named
bill, which, by the way, in our op-
inion, is one of the most import
ant measures ever introduced in
Congress.
We can we'll understand why a
monopolist-organ like the Journal
does not want thegoverment to is
sue paper money, the only kind OF
money that ever circulates freely
among the people. The people
will also understand it. The peo-
pie want and need more money
= money that will exchange their
products, and cancel their debts.
That is the kind of money
which Mr. r.Boen's bill provides, hen
ce the plutocrats objection to it.
The Journal article alluded to
is so full of Misrepresentation -
Misrepresentation characteristic
of the Journal fneworker -: that
did not our limited space forbid
it we should like to answer it in
full.
The fact that the Journal assails
our congressman is proof that he
has done his work ably, faithfully
and we'll, and the people Of this
great district so understand it and
they will return him to Congress
lin spite Of all the SANDER, misre-
presentation and abuse by the
j fo,,rn.I and other corpOratiOn