The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1904-08-26

Fl. P. Packard says:
LAS a member of the Redfeld cap.
ital committee | think that, per
haps. l was as active as any in try.
ing to get the combination of the
three cities formed. The question
frequently arose in joint meetings
of the CON ittees, about the out
rage on the people by leaving the
capital at Pierre, and none of the
members of those joint meetings
were more out spoken against Pierre
and in favor of one of the three
cities than Huron members. 1t has
been talked that there was some
unfair practices on the part of
Mitchell. but nc nj has specified
what or where. We we're fairly beat
en- and to cry fraud is nonsense.
The whole trend of the discussions
ir joint committee ere that any old
place in the Jim river valley was
preferable to Pierre. There has been
an item in the papers, probably from
Pierre or Huron source, that it was
part of IN agreement that the cities
were not to work for themselves.
The contrary was true. All were 10
work for removal ana each to scratch
gravel for themselves and all to
abide by the result of a Joint caucus.
| presume that the method of nom
mating a United States sentaor in
a Joint caucus was mentioned a
hundred times in the various JOINT
discussins, TO illustrate how it was
to be done, and for Huron OF Red
field not to be for Mitchell would be
just like a bolt of two unsuccessful
party candidates who should lose
out in the Joint legislative party
caucus.n
S E. Norris expressed his ideas
about as follows:
"My understanding was first, that
the three cities were to work for the
passage of the removal bill. Each
was expected to do the
best they could for their respective
towns and that the choice of cities
should be determined by a legislative
caucus and that the members of the
legislature from the respective coun-
ties were to heartily support the
bill, whichever city should be named
therein. So far as the real contest
was concerned, which all recognized
would be a sequel to the passage of
the till, there was a disposition to
hedge and so far as there was a con-
tract it does not appear to me that
its letter it implied a support at
the polls. 1t was argued that the
committees could not bind their con-
stituents, and yet the logic of the
combination was SO forceful that the
members Of the commit,
tee seemed to acknowledge that their
allegiance would be due to the city
that might win out. | would GER
have expected their support
had Redfield won. There is no ques-
lion but what all members agreed
hat any one of the three cities was
preferable to Pierre.
I. S. Everitt, another member of
committee, says after reading the
interview of MIR. Morris he does not
as he could change or add to
t. 81 have been three times a
member Of the legislature and at
every session the discomfort at the
Pierre location manifested itself.
This discomfort has grown until re-
was an easy matter and
)nly a few votes in both houses we're
recorded against it,"
N. P Bromley, who, owing to the
'act that he was a member of the
legislature and hence signed the COM
pact, said: -''I was not a member
the committee but was asked to
enter into an agreement with the
nembers-elect from Beadle and Dav-
son counties. I was disposed to de-
nur to such an act, but at the urg-
reOueSt, Of the committed dr.