The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1896-10-21
A LETTER.
Duluth, Mimi, Oct. 18th, 1896.

Since my nomination Tor the office
of Judge of District Court, certain
reports have been invented and Cir
culated concerning my connection
with the Struck Jury Bill at the last
session of our state legislature, of
which was a member l assume
that the people whom / served may
be interested in knowing the truth,
and 1 feel sure they will believe me
when ! tell them what the'truth is in
this matter.
l. 1t is claimed that introduced.
or originated, this bill.
The statement is untrue. The bill
was introduced in the Senate and l
never heard of it until after it had
passed that body and had been sent
to the House of Representatives, of
which / was member. 1t passed the
Senate with only four dissenting
votes, and every Democrat and
Populist, except one, who voted upon
the bill, voted in its favor.
2. 1t is claimed that the bill was
passed in the interest of certain
parties residing in Duluth. and that
what 1 did was done at their behest.
This statement is likewise untrue.
No one from this vicinity, or connect
ed with those here, ever mentioned
the bill to me, so far as | recall, and
certainlynone ever importuned me to
support or vote for it.
3. 1t is claimed that / was one of
the ardent. supporters of the bill.
This is directly opposed to the
truth. No man was ever asked by me
to support or vote for that bill. What
/ did in reference to the bill was done
against it. The only opposition there
was to it in the House of Representa-
tives originated with me. In the
judiciary committee of the House,
where 1 first learned of its 6.istcnce,
1 opposed and spoke against it.
At that time bill was pending in
the House to legalize contract which
years before had been made between
the village of West Duluth. and the
West Duluth Light & Water COM
pany. The contract was unjust, and
the bill to legalize it was infamous.
Its passage was reported worth $780,
600 to the company. The bill had
passed the Senate and was being
vigorously pushed by the most subtle
corporate and political influence in
this state. Well known ST. Paul
parties controlled the company. and
the bill was in their interest. They,
with large following in the House
and a strong lobby, were pressing the
bill forward. Our people in Duluth,
through numerous delegations de-
manded it's defeat, and our delegation
worked faithfully and successfully to
that end. To secure for us the
support of the Minneapolis delegation
of fifteen members, one Of their
number demanded in return that 1
support the Struck Jury Bill. Up to
that time the latter bill had attract
ed no attention whatever. Practical
ly no one had said anything against
it except myself. / declined to
support the bill, but finally offered as
a compromise to vote for it in return
for their support, reserving the right
to otherwise continue my opposition
if further inquiry made il desirable
to do SO. This and this only. was the
occasion of my afterwards voting for
the bill.
During that session of the legisla-
ture Mr.. VIM. G. Hayes of Mime
apolis, member Of the labor organi-
cation known as the Brotherhood Of
Locomotive Engineers, was one of
those having in charge the interests
of organized labor. He was most
efficient in his service and was daily
on the floor of the House, but was not
member. / at once notified him of
the bill, and offered to assist him in
such manner as he might desire in
case he should conclude to oppose it.
l have lately received letter from
Mr.. Hayes, bearing upon thisquestion,
d part of which reads rs follows:
IT know of my own knowledge this
report concerning your attitude
toward the Struck Jury Bill to be
wholly untrue. When the so called
Struck Jury Bill first came to the
House from the Senate, you called my
Alteration particularly to it's pro-
visions, and advised me of the possible
abuse to which such a law might be