Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1910-12-28
w,lLMAR, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER "a. 1910.
POLITICIANS SHY AT MILD TEST
OF PROGRESSIVENE

OF PROGRESSIVENES
The following clipping from the
political columns of the Minneapo-
lis Journal is interesting as show
ing the ideas that some people have
Of the word "progressive' as ap-
piled to members of the old parties
at the present time. When a pub
lie man within the Republican
ranks like Senator Garfield should
shy at the mild test applied to the
prospective guests at the progress
sive banquet and convention, then
one need not wonder at the ease
with which the party machine can
whip, herd, deliver and sell out the
rank and file of their blindly faith
full followers to the interests time
after time without serious conse-
quences to themselves. The clip
ping referred to follows:
Not all republicans Of Minnesota
who call themselves "progressives"
will respond to the test imposed for
delegates to the convention of the
progressive Republican league,
which is to meet in Minneapolis
Jan. 4. Senator E. II. Garfield of
Luverne Was one of the hundred
signers of the original call for the
meeting, but he has written that
he cannot sign the credential card
and come as a delegate, because he
cannot agree to the terms imposed.
The card reads as follows:
II will be present at the progress
sive republican convention in
Minneapolis Wednesday,, Jan. 4.
1911. am in favor of extension of
the direct primary law to all state
officers and to United States sena-
tors. and the initiative, referendum
and recall as representing some of
, the cardinal principals Of progress
sive republicanism.
These questions were not men,
toned in the original cali. Sen
ator Garfield is strongly opposed to
extension of the direct primary,
and in favor of radical changes in
the present law. He made hard
fight at the last session of the legis.
)ature for a new law to combine the
delegate feature voting. He has
written the twin city committee
; demanding to- know who imposed
conditions not included in the orig
inal call.
In reply Frank B. Lamson, cor
responding secretary. explains that
when responses to the call began to
arrive. many delegates urged that
some test be imposed to make GER
; tain that the convention be con-
trolIed by real progressives There
was practical unanimity in favor
of the initiative and referendum
and direct primary extension as is
sues for which progresslves should
stand. In other states the direct
primary especially has been lead
ing principle of progressive repub-
licans. New York, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Oregon and California were cited
! as examples.
Special invitation was extended
to Senator Garfield to come without
signing a credential card, because
his legislative record has shown him
to be real progressive.
The Luverne Herald, published
in Senator Canfeld's home town,
goes after the promoters of the
gathering with hammer and tongs.
The Herald says:
. "1nstead of the patriotic purpose
set forth in the call we find
an absolute antipodes to this
sentiment. We find a few with
apparent selfish objects in view
endeavoring by stealth and trick
cry to launch a movement to fur
Their these objects. Instead of a
mass convention, as it is termed
we find the most stringent precau-
lions exerted to keep the masses
out and to admit only such persons
as are positively known to favor
ideas held by the instigators of the
meeting. To gain admittance one
must pledge himself to support
principles that the best thought of
his party hold to be unsound and
THAT, in fact, are unrepublican.
Who imposes this demand upon
the signers of the "call''? Itsure-
ly cannot be the people in their
spontaneous uprising without lead
ership.' If not, who is the leader
who is thus denied before the pub
lie? Can he be a henchman of La
Follette's who resides in Minnea.
-