The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1909-07-08
81 s Michel Capital.
~W{uRspAY, 1908.
Nh uRAWFoRDs ERROR.

The Sioux City Tribune is not en-
tahlysly through with Its criticism OF
senator Crawford, who has displayed
such poor judgment in picking out
h11s associates In the senate in utter
dSnance Of what the people of South
Dakota feel they are entitled to.
Having travelled the state extensive
ii m His campaign speeches the sen
at0r musts have secured some know
lSdge OF how the people felt on var
tOus things in the tariff schedule.
But It seems to have helped him very
little whensit came to voting on the
wool schedules. although his voice
wasAEraised in a different way. The
Tribune becomes a little more speci-
&c In its criticism Of Senator Craw-
ford concerning his attitude on the
cotton and wooden schedules. Per-
haps the newspapers in this state
which have criticized the senator on
voting 10 he did on the tariff on pa
per. did 30 because they felt that
through their support he was enabled
very much to land the se%natorship
and they believed it mighty poor
recompense that Senator Crawford
could not Q his way clear to give
them the benefit Of the 81 as de-
clared by the house.
The Tribune has the following to
oHer concerning Mr.. Crawford's at
titude on the cotton and wooden
schedules:
Iribune's criticism OF Senator
Crawford was not based on his vote
for the1gAlidrich rate on print paper.
While this paper believes. after a
careful reading Of the debate on the
paper schedule. that there is no ex-
cuse, under the standard adopted for
measuring protection to our indust-
rles. including that REASONABLE
pront, for = duty on pulp o paper,
the dSnionstration having been com
plete that the cost Of production is
leas hers than ID Canada, it is not
given to letting its own interests In
huence ~ Judgment OF men and
measures. The senator's implacable
anemiessins South Dakota seize upon
this vote tp condemn him, thus evinc-
ing that same personal motive that
made theinshis opponents.
.ss1TIhsaTribune has stated the rea-
son for Its criticism and the cores
sponldent Who made defense of the
senator did not meet 1t. The main
and wel founded criticism is that
ri. Crawford failed to realize that
the same relentless element, simil-
afly motiyed. ruled The majority in
Washin9t0n that fought MIN In South
DAkotasN required no extraordinary
Naeumelsto discern this. Aldrichism
md Cannonism and Kittredgeism are
identical. He should have seen that
ssit wass Against these that the little
band of '~rrogressive senator's were ar
rayed and has thrown himself In with
theIn. II wasa fight to the death with
him against this element In South
Dakota, and It ID . fight to the death
with 81 IN Washington.
sAssssTh light conferred on the cottons
andSw00lens schedule. Aldrich made
Iii trades with other senator's, hav-
inE their pet local interests to guard,
Is Eet votes to make his rates on
these articles Of universal use and
constant demand what he and the
manufacturers Of New England de
SIRED. Il was on these that Cummins,
@LaFollette1andi ppolliver made their
great attacks, stripping from the
achedulssSth disguises by which Al
drich had masked the increases. II
was therestha every progressive SEN
ator should have placed himself, and
itgWassthere where the vote with AL
drich of senators classed as progress
Ives. rave him aid and gave their as
sociates Acknowledgement.
@ ~ VOA0AAy W06 tAl6 tllO Case
With the yoolens schedule. the one
selected BY his defender on whichato
Justify the senator's votes. He voted
% he did to protect wool, It is said.
aDolliyers In several amendments.
soughtsto limit the duty on wool con-
tained 81 woolens, his point being
thatstt was absurd and unjust to tax
cotton warp as wool. Both South Da-
kota sellators voted against his
amendments. Dolliver then tried to
gsta maximum tariff Of 100 per
ct md axain both senator's voted
Sag1inst him. He then modified 1t to
40 pelr cent and they voted with AL
dri1A. sowhen LaFalletts offered his
sss1esssof amendments to lower rates,
stileIr votes were nays.