The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-09-16

Hon. j. L. McCleary, Mankato. Mimi
Dear Sir-On May 30. in my publishe
announcement as a republican .eandidat
for congress, l stated fully what stoo,
for and what | opposed concerning tn
issues on which republicans might diffe
in this contest
In that announcement | stated that
stood for the measure of protection ad
vocated by President Roosevelt, for tn
removal of the tariff on lumber. and fol
the reduction of duties on certain com
modities which are now being sold TO
export for less that they are at home
In answer thereto, in a widely published
interview, You quite promptly undertook
to read me, and all republicans who be.
lieye as | do, out of the party.
In this interview you refrained from
expressing your views on the subjects
had referred to.
On August Il, in an open letter to
you, | wrote you as follows:
eve are both candidates of the same
party for the same office. Neither YOU
nor | should arrogate to himself the
right to determine for others what is
the true republican doctrine under the
platform. But it is proper that your
% g.
issues should be expressly stated. In
order, therefore, that the voters may be
able to determine for themselves which
OF MS, as You express it, is most Gin
harmony with the National PLATFORM -
l ask you to publish answers to the fol-
lowing questions:
/. Would you favor a tariff built on
the line of the difference in labor cost
here and abroad?
.. Do you believe that the 59th con-
gress should take up the question of tar
iff revision?
3. When the tariff is revised, do you
believe that the revision should be on an
ascending instead of a descending scale !?
4. Do YOU still maintain that "revi-
sion upward can always be undertaken
safely?
5. Do YOU know that a combination
exists whose purpose is to exact enor-
nous profits on the price of lumber? If
so, or if such is the fact, do you favor
the retention Of the present tariff on
lumber?
&. If no such combination exists, do
you still favor the retention of the pres
ent tariff rate on lumber?
I. Do you believe in protective tar
i'll on wood pulp and pulp wood?
8. Do you believe that commodities
that are absolutely controlled by trust
or monopoly of any kind should re-
ceive the benefit of protection?
Q. Do you believe that Industries that
sell the commodities they produce cheap
er in the markets that they are protect
ed against than they do at home, should
be protected?
10. Do you believe that the industries
known as the "steel trust" and the 'In-
ternational Harvester Trust" require,
deserve or, should have protection to
guard and develop them?
IL. Do you believe in reciprocity? If
so, do you believe that republican reel
procity means reciprocity in non-compet-
ing products only?
On September Z, after taking three
weeks to answer, you addressed to me
and published letter in reply. This let
ter received on the evening of Sept. o.
Before replying to it / wish to make a
few observations with reference to our
contest. From the outset l have care
fully avoided personalities. l have con-
fined my criticisms to your expressed
opinions, and if you are nominated | can
and will give to you the same loyal sup
port that I have always given to the
republican ticket.
But how stands the case with you?
Your first communication was full of
personalities. Your last accused me of
making false promises to secure votes.
With no grounds whatever therefore you
insinuate that at future time | will
attempt equivocation and evasion, and
finally, you warn me that you shall
'deem it your duty to the public to show
me up mercilessly if l attempt to make
any but the full, clear, straightforward
answer to which the people are entitled"
Expressions of this kind make an an
alysis of the results of your three weeks
of preparation profitable. From such an
alysis we find the following facts:
/. Although the above questions could
have been answered in few lines, you
have occupied almost two columns of
space in your reply and nowhere therein
do you answer any of the questions ask
ed except the last.
2. In answering this one question you
misstate and misrepresent my views
with reference to reciprocity with Can
ada. have never written or uttered any
statement which can be twisted into such
expression of views as you attribute to
me. Neither have / ever entertained
such views.
3. Instead of stating your position
with reference to trusts, you misstate
mine.
a. You make the unqualifiedly false