The daily sentinel., 1907-02-11
SENATOR TAYLoR's ANSWER
The Author of the Bill to Change the
Name OF Grand River
Explains.


t. Taylor. the author of the bill pro-
viding for the change of the name
of the Grand river to the Colorado
river, to Secretary Aupperle, of the
local chamber of commerce. Senator
Taylor desires that this letter be Civ
en- full publicity so that the people
OF Grand Junction may know just
what position he is taking.
This letter is in reply to the one
written by Secretary Aupperle in
forming him that local opinion and
sentiment is overwhelmingly against
the bill.
The letter is as follows:
Denver. Colo. Feb. s. 1907.
Hon. D. w. Aupperle.
Secretary Chamber of Commerce,
Grand Junction, Colo.
Dear Sir:
Yours of the sixth inst. Just re-
ceived. l am very much surprised at
the contents of your letter as well as
despatch from Grand Junction
which I notice in the Denver News
this morning. After writing your
Chamber of Commerce I wrote to all
the newspapers in my senatorial dis
trict, Garfield, Eagle and Rio Blanco
counties. and sent each one of them
a copy of the bill and a copy of my
letter to your Chamber of Commerce
and urged each of them to advise me
of the sentiment among their readers
/ n fn tha aba I
ing replies from those three counties.
The bill was put on the calendar of
the senate and when it was reached
in the regular order several days
ago l consulted with Senator DeLong
about the matter, and decided to-
have it considered in the Committee
of the Whole to obtain the sentiment
of the enate. Senator DeLong, who
sits by me, and with whom have a
perfect understanding about this mat
ter, said that for the present he
would out of consideration of the di-
vided sentiment in his county simply
vote against the bill. and let the mat
ter stand in that way. and he did so.
The bill was considered favorable
by a vote of seventeen to eight and
was ordered revised and placed upon
the calendar for third reading. That
is where the bill stands now. 1t has
not passed the senate, and there has
never been a roll call on it yet, and
1t has not gone to the house. We arel
simply holding the matter on thel
calendar in allegiance to await thel
concensus of opinion on the subject.
/ did not say that l would be govern
ed by your Chamber of Commerce or
by Mesa county l said in my letter
to you that if Mesa, Garfield and
Eagle counties disapproved of the
measure would promptly drop it..
l still re-iterate that statement. and
Senator DeLong and have the bill
wholly within our control.
There has not been and will not
rushing the bill through. or doing
otherwise than considering the wish
es of the people in the Grand river
valley and that watershed; and l am
not only surprised but cannot resist
having a feeling that there is moth
ing in the situation that warrants the
tone of your letter or of the despatch
referred to.
have heard from eight news
papers In my district, and only two of
them disapproved of the bill; and
those are two Republican papers that
have for ten years either remained
silent or disparaged everything l did,
so that 1 knew what their position
should be In advance and paid no at
tention to them. do not over-state
pie throughout the state have writ
ten and spoken to me about this bill
and nearly every one of them has
approved of the measure. Besides, |
nearly all of the leading newspapers
of the state approve of 1t. and the
Denver Republican and Pueblo Chief |
tain have each contained extended
editorials in favor of the measure.
However. I beg to assure you and
your Chamber of Commerce that
have no thought and much less de-
sire to incur the displeasure of the
people of Mesa county over a matter
that has no personal interest to me
whatever and that l shall hold the
bill on the senate calendar until L
can hear from my constituents, and
that unless the sentiment of the fair
minded people of Garfield and Eagle |
counties is practically unanimous l
shall ask to have the bill laid on the
table.
will say further that there will
be no step taken excepting in the
presence of Senator DeLong. ! firm