Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1899-08-02

! popular vote certainly indica te
I clearly the wishes OF the people il
: this subject. You cannot find /,
t kandiyohi county fifty men who ia
!. vor appointment and those who dt
are perhaps employed by the Grea
Nor them and in a measure cOercet
= in their action. Then there are
t few who enjoy the luxury and com
pliment OF u pass who may inclin,
towards the company's wishes. Blu
the great mass of the people honest
. ly believe the commission should b,
elected. This subject is as old as tn.
railroad law of 1885 ITSELF At every
session of the legislatu since 1885,
attempts to amend the act of lSS;
in this respect have been made. They
always had the practically solid sup
port of the alliance and populist
members together with that ofmany
republicans and democrats. And
these attempts to amend the law
have always had the endorsement OF
Kandiyohi county people with the
exception above noted.
TO elect the commission was the
one ray of hope that many enter
tanned in reference to a fair, honest,
Interpretation and enforcement OF
our grain and railroad laws. The
members of the Legislature from Kan.
diyohi county always realized this
sentiment Of their constituents too.
Messrs. Guam, Glader, Thorpe and
myself all supported such legislation;
even in some inscrutable way Senator
Grue differed from his colleague in
the House. Now, why did Mr.. Mel
son vote against this peoples meas
ure? l say peoples measure" be-
cause it was demanded by practical
~ all the people. You say he didn' t
ask the views of any of his constitu-
ents as far as you know. I repeat
my question Of last week: whom did
he ask? by whose advice did he set
up his negative action as against the
wishes of his constituents?
Did the same influences that de
feated this bill during my terms in
the legislature viz, the railroads,
crystalize his opinion and action?
During my Legislative experience this
bill met three defeats and every time
at the instigation and through the
''inflooence'' OF the Railroads and
the Railroad Commission itself.
This last time l am informed the
Commission did not oppose the pas
sage OF the act consequently only
one potent agency OF opposition was
left, and with that opposition my
successor associated himself in his
negative action. He can monopolize
his action on this score. But, why
Mr.. Lawson, did our representative
do this? Why slap all his people in
the face by his vote on this bill. You
didn't answer that question my dear
Victor? Come forward with the
truth if that is possible. But first,
catechize Mr.. Nelson. Ask him if he
had made any ante election deal with
any OF the G.. N. representatives! Ask
him why the so-called independent
railway employees club agreed to
stand by him as an organization?
Ask him what promises he made to
them! Ask him whether or not Mr..
Tony Manley had anything to do
with his vote and last of all ask him
to adduce some reason for his vote.
The objections you speak OF to elect
ing the commission are the identical
ones that every corporation lawyer
and corporation hireling will adduce.
Can it lie possible that your reform
G? representative deliberately sacri-
feed the interests OF his people and
voted to please the tools of corpora
tions? Perish the thought! Why a
man who (as rumOr has it, was
selected as the Populist candidate by
a disgruntled, disappointed Republi.
can ex-oftice holder wouldn't be gull.
ty, OF such treachery! Perhaps Mel.
sons action was like Grue's on the
bond bill simply ''mistake.' And
"mistakes" come cheap from Popu.
list reformers. But the fact remains
Mr.. Nelson misrepresented the people
he represents and he has and ought
to merit their condemnation. This
was another matter that your Tri
bune Mr.. Lawson was SO remarkably
silent about last winter! Were YOU
ashamed Of your mans action?
And now to the O. Neil anti-boycot1
bill and my friend Nelson's vote or
that important proposition. Her,
Mr.. Victor Lay is the most scan
dalous piece OF legislation attempted
last win ter andit had Mr.. Nelson al
supporter. It was a measure tina
has not one redeeming feature abou
it. 1t was most dastardly at
, tempt to muzzle the people. Why,
three or more persons would agre
to stop collectively their subscrip
tiOns to the Willmar Tribune becaus
they were tired of being humbugue,
. by sham reforms and calamity bowls
t and would try to get Others to d,
2 the same, they would be liable unde
7 this reform (?) measure. 1t was dc
e nounced by every labor organiza tio1