The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-09-16
MILLER REPLIES TO M'CLEARY

orable efforts to have such tariff remov
ed
5. You assert that / ought not to bt
elected because / would not be able Ii
secure the removal of the tariff on hum
ber
6. You give an Inaccurate and mis-,
leading statement of my views with ref
erenee to tariff revision.
Z. Finally, at the heels of the cam
paign, you invite me to orally discuss
with you vague issues of your own max.
ing, and issues to be hereafter made, de-
pending on an entire misrepresentation
and misetatement of the real differences
between us coupled with a promise that
during such discussion you will answer
orally the questions to which have ask
ed you to give specific answers in the
public prints.
On the showing thus made, which of
us is guilty of evasion? Which of us is
attempting to deceive the public? Which
of us should be ''mercilessly shown up
to the public for failing to make any
'but full, clear and straightforward ans
wers to the questions to which the peo-
pie are entitled?" viii you kindly tell
the public why it is that although you
had three weeks in which to consider the
matter, during which time, if you had so
desired, every voter in the district could
have had the benefit of your answers to
the questions and thus determined for
himself whether or not you represent his
views, You publish letter in reply N
which you fail to aDswn~ the questions
and claim to desire an opportunity to
answer them orally? Do you claim that
an oral answer is better than a printed
one? 1t would be an insult to your in
telligence to ask you if you do not know
that had you published answers to these
questions they would have been read and
understood by hundreds of voters who
counld not attend meetings such as you
propose and there hear your oral ans
wers.
You state that all of these questions
are answered already in your published
speeches. In which of your speeches are
they answered? Are you not willing to
declare whether you are with the presi-
dent on the question as to the proper
maximum measure of protection? Are
you unwilling to state whether you favor
or oppose the retention of the tariff on
lumber? Is not your failure to publish
answers present evasion and not the
prospective, imaginary evasion you as
sumo l will use? E..
What brand of counterfeit logic do you
use in the argument that l should not
be elected to congress because could not
obtain the removal of harmful and UNI
necessary tariff from lumber, and that
YOU should be elected because you are
opposed to making any effort to secure
its removal and are supposed to believe
in its retention? How long will it be be-
fore the tariff on lumber is removed if
men who believe as you do are elected to
congress?
Many have been lead to believe from
your speeches that you had taken an
advanced position for increased tariff.
In your last communication, however,
you fall back into the class who advo-
cate letting swell enough alone" No
advance could ever have been made if
America had been content in all in
stances to ''let well enough alone" 1t
has been suggested recently in the public
prints that the lumber trust. the steel
trust and the oil trust would be quite
content with such program.
Let me also suggest to you that l
have not and will not discuss the re-
moval or reduction of tariff schedules
that you know will not be touched, and
that our differences concerning tariff
revision are confined to those commodi-
ties specifically referred to in my an
nouneement, which | contend should be
revised downward and which you have
asserted could be safely revised upward.
What we are seeking is a revision of
tariff on certain products as to which we
believe protection has already served its
purpose and is now being used for the
benefit of the few
Now as to your suggestion concerning
joint discussions. The questions above
stated were proposed to you for the pur