The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-11-05

entlre period played their usual conf
dence game ON the people, But whenever
MT. Lowry and his MONOPOLY sought
any privilege, great CIR small, from
them, they have granted it on every
occasion except one, and on that oc.
caslon We're beaten in their purpose
only by the people rising in the mass
and presenting themselves at the
council chamber. 1t was in this wap
alone that the conspiracy to turn Uni
VerSlty avenue into a railroad track
FOR the monopoly was beaten.
mere are certain of the members of
this officeholdtng combine now coming
before the people for election, and the
record they have made in this respect
Is one with which the people should
be made acquainted. OF the men who
nave done the bidding of the monopoly
ana It's Republican organ, at least four.
are now seeking the popular suffra ge-
Aros1n, johnson, Krahmer and Rige,
low. They have all made their records.
and those records should go far in
enabling the people to decide their
worthiness Of popular support.
s.
Let us take the record Of "Billy'
johnson first. He has been perhaps
the most dangerous of the tools Of the
street car monopoly that have crowded
the corridors of local legislation for
years past. The money of the street
car concern is now being spent for his
election He has been identified with
the street car people for four years
gettlng every undue privilege which in
that time they have wrung from the
people through the treason to the pub
lie interest Of the local Republican Of
f1ceholding combine.
Billy is quite sensitive on this
score. He has WINGED tirnidly under
the attacks of The G o b e, and he has
endeaVored to bluff his way out of the
difficulty. In Thursdays Dispatch
Billy denies with much indignation
that he was in favor of the outrageous
scheme to turn University avenue over
to the street car monopoly This is the
way he puts it:
When the Democrats say that I favored
Lne placing OF four tracks on University ave-
nue. they say what is not true and what
they know Is not true. The accusation is
so utterly groundless that 1t Is NOT neces
sary to explain.
Is that 50, "Billy?" Not necessary to
explain, Ell? Well; Wen see about that
Somebody is lying-efther "BiIlv'' or
his accusers. Now, which is If?
AS far back as Aug 4, 1896. an ordi-
nance was introduced in the board of
aldermen to establish that four-track
scheme on University avenue. IT was
introduced by Republican, Aid. Ken
ny. The scheme remained in the shade
for long time 1t was not thouoh+
cpportune to push it forward, especial
~ as the two houses of the. Repl1hIican
council were quite busy for the ensu-
ing year playing tag on every promo
sltlon that had come before either BODY
Which was designed in any way to
limit the powers or privileges of the
monopoly. 1t came up again however,
in the form Of a blanket ordinance
prepared by the colnpany's attorneys a.
year later. That proposition carried So
much that was outrageous with II he
SIDES the four-track scheme that its
reference to the committee ended its
career for long period thereafter
-
Finally, however, the scheme AGAIN
reappeared, this time in the form of an
ordinance prepared by the Republican
city attorney and special COMMITTEES
Oh the Republican council. That ordi-
nance was reported to the board Of
aldermen on Aug. IS, 1897 It was re-
ported by the city attorney and the
special committee of the council, who
were the members of that special com
mittee of the council? That COMMITTEES
included Assemblyman William r
Johnson, the present Republican candi-
cate for county, auditor. Perhaps Bill
ly will have the impudence to declare
that statement to be a lie? If he does
not, it is proper to ask did Johnson
ever say a, word OR cast a vote against
the adoption Of that report, either in
the committee or in the council. He
did not. If he says he Gid, in his own
choice language, "he lies, and he knows
he lies" Did Billy say or do any
thing for that ordinance directly or in
directly? If he did, again in his own
choice language, it is to be said: 'eHe
lies, and he knows he lies" or else the
organ of the street car monopoly does
his lying for him in quoting him as
1T does in the above statement.
Now, what is the fact? When that
four-track proposal came before the
beard Of aldermen the chamber was
crowded with citizens and ATTORNEYS
to denounce the infamous scheme. II
was denounced unsparingly by both
citizens and attorneys, and its fate was
then and there forever sealed. But it
came up for consideration again two
evenings later, on Aug. 10, and was
again discussed. Billy Johnson this
time took part in that discussion. He
was then an assemblyman. Did he de-
nounce the scheme? Did he oppose its
adoption? Not a bit of it. The pro
ceedings of that meeting are matters
Of public record And in establishing