Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1904-11-05

trich, and we deny that the major
ity Of the Republicans Of the Third
Congressional District desired his
nomination, or now desire his cleo
ton" 1t is sufficient answer that
these caucuses were called at a time
when the farmers of the district
could best attend, that the vote
was one of the largest ever regis
tered in this county, and his en-
dOrsement one of the most unan-
imous ever given candidate against
such tremendous opposition. That
the majority of the votes in prac-
tically every precinct in the county
were bought in an insult to the suf-
frage of the county, and needs no
refutation.
70. He is not bona fide resi-
dent of this district, but that he
now resides and for years has resid-
ed, in Washington, d. c." If Mr..
Babcock saw fit to take his wife
with him to Washington, where he
was obliged to remain for nine or
ten. months out Of every year, is it
any persons business other than
his own? Besides his duties as con-
gresham from this district, he has
for years been paid the distinguish
ed honor Of being made chairman
of the national congressional COM
mittee, position which has carried
with it many onerous duties, and
required much of his time and at
tention. Did Mr.. Babcock forfeit
his residence by taking his wife to
live for winter in Washington?
~. He has no interest in COM
mon with the people of said dis
trict." This charges nothing. An
attempt to reply to this would be
as idle and foolish as the charge it.
self.
"5. He has favored corporations
and trusts to the detriment of the
common people," What trust has
he favored? What corporation has
he favored to the detriment of the
c )mmon people? The editor has
taken seven months to consider
this matter. If Mr.. Babcock is
guilty, he is guilty of specific acts.
Why is not one such act mentioned?
Shall we not say that after seven
months of careful inquiry the editor
has failed to find a valid charge
against him under this head?
&c. He has wrongfully favored
large manufacturing concerns to
the detriment of smaller ones" In
what instance has he favored, right
fully, or wrongfully, any manu-
featuring concern against any
! other? This charge, like the last,
charges nothing, but stands as an
admission that after seven months
of effort, no valid charge against
Mr.. Babcock under this head can
be made.
~. He has lobbied in favor of a
bill in Congress to add $3.50, 900 of
watered stock to the stock of the
Washington Gas Company, in which
company he was then interested"
If this charge is true, why has not
complaint been made Of it in Wash
ington? His action on the Wash
ington Gas company proposition is
not a recent one. Why has it not
been criticised before? Why has it
not been criticised by the sufferers9
Why has it been commended by all
! the public journals printed at Wash
ington and in the east, and also
been commended by public men at
Washington?
IS. He lobbied a bill through
our state legislature, reducing the
price of $4,000 acres of land from
fifty cents to twenty-five cents per
acre, and then became indirectly the
purchaser Of this entire tract of land
which was shortly afterward sold at
the rate of five dollars per acre and
upwards" If this charge is true
the act was committed thirty years
ago, long before Mr.. Babcock had
thought of running for congress.
If he was guilty in this instance his
act was public one, and if true it
furnished a valid reason why he
never should have been candidate
for congress from the third district.
Why was it never mentioned before?
Why has not attention been called
to it IN years past? By what indi-
rect method did Congressman Bah
cock become purchaser? In the
name Of fairness, make youy charge
definite enough SO that if false, Mr.
Babcock may take advantage of the
falsehood, or else remain silent. Is
any man today willing to give
twenty-five dollars for a hun