The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-10-10
IN DEFENSE OF LONG

The assertion Of Mr.. Curtis that the
Union Pacific defeated him for United
States senator. and the Inference drawn
therefrem that it elected Senator Long,
brings Forth a defense from one of Mr..
Longs closest friends. Mr.. ". 7. Nor
gan. editor of the Hutchinson News.
And a clever defense it is.
Mr.. Morgan admits, OF course. that
the Union Pacific influence was for Mr.
Long. but he contends that this was not
the cause Of Longs election, but only
contributed to it. The election Of Sen
ator Long asserts Mr.. Morgan, was
secured by the loyal and practically
solid support of his old Seventh district
and the hard campaigning done by him
self and friends" He continues:
We believe William Allen White,
who was as active in that senatorial
fight as he will be in the next tries
to state his views fairly, but he is
making an incorrect diagnosis, as he
will see himself If he takes the sec
ond thought. White says in effect
that the Union Pacific supported Long
and the Santa Fe and Rock Island
We're for Curtis and that Stanley had
no railroad assistance. In that contest
White was for Stanley.
The facts are that, so far as Mr..
Long was concerned he received
mighty few votes from the Union Pa
cific country. Call the roll. Mr.. Will
| lam, and see. Hill of Russell, O'Don-
nell of Ellsworth, Kramer OF Rocks
and Meade OF Mitchell were for Stan
WOOdhouse Of Wallace for Long. Cur
tbs got more than either Long or Stan
ley. It is true that when Stanley
withdrew. released his supporters and
nine-tenths Of them at once declared
/ for Long. But so did J. 2. Evans of
Emporia, and certainly with the ap-
prevail Of his close friend White. In
/ fact, more careful reelection viii show
to VIII White that he and his friends
made Long senator and contributed
much more to that result than any
railroad attorney could have done The
fact that White and his friends de-
clared for Long promptly and cheer
fully when their first choice failed TO
land settled the senatorial fight, and
all other candidates withdrew. Until
that happy moment came, the support
Of Long was confined almost altogeth-
er TO the members from his own dis
trict in which the Union Pacific has
no influence, and to scattering votes
from other parts Of the state from
men like Senator Porter of Pittsburg.
Senator Allen Of Doniphan and George
Hayden of Nemaha and a few others,
whose votes We're because Of Long 8
standing as congressman, his work
for Cuban reciprocity and his support
Of President Roosevelt. We believe
| that the same reasons led WIN White
and the Stanley men to go to Long
when their candidate withdrew.
1T is true that Mr. n. H. LOOMS.
attorney for the Union Pacific was
for Long, and that Mr.. Low. attorney
for the Rock Island was for Curtis and
that Colonel Richards Of the Missouri
Pacific was for Bowersock. But all
these were personal choices. II the
railroads took any part in that mixup
it was when they tried to elect a
speaker and were defeated by a combi-
nation Of Long and Stanley men on
Pringle. But as a matter OF fact the
present political divisions were not in
existence at that time. Bristow was
for Long. Stubs was talking for M.
A. Low and voting for BoWersoek. The
Topeka Capital. the Kansas City Jour
nal and the Topeka Herald were for
/ Curtis. The Kansas City Star editor
| tally approved OF Long but took no &C
/ tive part except in the Kansas news
end. which was for Curtis. Victor Muir
/ dock was for Long as against his own
4 townsman. Stanley. Senator Burton
and his friends were against Long, be-
ing especially vicious against 'Pringie-
/ ism.
s'The far-back fact is that when
Bailey was nominated at Wichita IN