The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-11-04

being supported by the corporations
quite agree with them.
The veracty of Gov NJ. f. Hay and
his knowledge of recent legislative his
tory is questioned in a letter written
to him by Rufus r. Wilson, secretary
of the Non-Partisan Judiciary League.
The letter was sent by registered mail
and Mr. Wilson has the return card
showing that the governor has received
the letter. Yet the governor has not
replied. Mr.. Wilson's letter, which is
sefeXplanatory, follows:
Seattle, Wash, Oct. 25, 1910,
Hon H. E. Hay
Olympia, Wash.
Dear Sir: There is before me a copy
of a statement purporting to be author
lied by you in which you refer to a cir
cular issued by this league. holding
present judges of the supreme court re-
sponsible for the passage of the law,
which took the nomination of members
of that body from the direct primary
and returned it to the convention sys-
TEN. You say of the circular in ques-
ton: 1T is seldom that | have seen
a more unfair, untruthful. ungenerous
statement"
1t is presumed that man holding
your exalted position is in the habit of
carefully weighing his words. The peo-
Pile, therefore, have right to expect
that you are prepared to show in detail
that the circular issued by this league
is in fact "unfair, untruthful' and ''un-
generous" TO be specific:
Do you deny that Frank T. Post a
corporation lawyer of Spokane was
one of the earliest advocates before
the legislature of the amendment to
the Direct Primary law whereby the
nomination of supreme court judges
was taken from the people? 1t is a
matter of common knowledge that Post
was in Olympia for that purpose dur
ing the 1909 session of the legislature
Do You deny that the judicial conven
ton law as presented to the legisa-
ture was drawn by c. viii Shaffer, an
appointee and servant of the supreme
court? Shaffer admits such to be the
ease.
Do you deny that justices OF the su
preme court requested members of the
house and senate to vote for the bill ?
Former legislators. whose affidavits
are available, declare they voted for it
because requested to do so by members
of the court.
Do you deny that when the bill first
came before the legislature Speaker
Meigs was opposed to it, but when sum
moned into a conference with two mem
bers of the court he was prevailed up
on to change his position and support
itl If so, well known citizen stands
ready to state over his own signature
that he had the foregoing facts direct
from the speaker himself.
Do you deny that when the bill went
to you for approval, you opposed the
convention feature of it, and had a
message written vetoing it, but that
members of the supreme court prevailed
on you to change your mind and sign
! it, A well known citizen states that
in the presence of a witness, you de
clared to him that such was the case
Another we'll known citizen states that
again in the presence of witness YOU
declared it to be your purpose to veto
the bill. Why did you change ,tm
mind?
Do You deny that members of The
supreme court eXerted themselves t.
prevent the repeal of the judicial con
vention law by the special Legislature,
of 1902 Members of that body de
clare such to be the case
! Do you deny that. while five justices
of the supreme court accepted nomi
nation from the Tacoma convention o
August 3. not one of them, although
some Of them Were actually present il
the convention hall, lifted his voice II