The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-02-28
Apparently Will Garry the Fight
to Adversary.
NEELEY MAKES REPLY
Lie Passes Between This Demo-
crat and Dawson.
Lot of Strong Charges Against
Railroad Board Attorney.

attorney General Fred 5. Jackson
who is a candidate for congress in the
Fourth district against ]. M. Miller. is
going to carry the fighting to this Mil
Ter person and wage an aggressive cam
pa1gn from start to finish. This fact is
already evident from the preliminary
movements of the attorney general Mr..
Jackson has been studying the Miller
record in congress and the Miller vote.
and therein he thinks he has found
material upon which to start the cam
paign. Mr.. Jackson has wrapped his
information and dedunctions in copper
Jacket and placed charge of smoke
less powder behind the package and
sends it out to the people of the Fourth
district in the following form:
Mr.. Miller's last attempt to answer
my inquiries concerning his record is
quite indicative of his record of late
years in congress He is willy and deals
out pure buncombe. In the first place,
/ very quietly observed that it was
pity that Mr.. Miller had not had the
soldiers pensions increased at the same
ed. Mr.. Miller picks out something
from the opening lines of the Topeka
Capital report which it was quite evi-
dent from the article itself was not
imputed to me. because what I had
said was quoted literally and complete
ly in another part of the same article,
and then he proceeds to denOunce me
more vehemently than elegantly for
misrepresenting him. and also to assert
that the record shows he voted against
the bill~increasing congressional salar-
les. care not whether he voted for or
against it, and said nothing about how
he voted. as ne we'll knew. But since he
clustered so about it. I asked him for
the record, and he gives December IA,
1906. Now, Mr.. Miller knows the bill
which increased salaries did not pass
ther and was not voted on then. The
vote taken that day was on an amend
ment to the legislative, executive and
judicial appropriation BILL This meas
ure differed from the bill which finally
passed in two important particulars. 1t
did not increase Speaker Cannon's sal
ary. It did not go into effect until
March, 1909, instead of March, 1907, as
the salary bill which passed did Mr..
Miller did vote against this measure
and Mr. Littaur-he of high tariff glove
fame, and dearly beloved of the speak
er called for the yeas and nays. No
congressman could vote against raising
the speakers salary without going on
record. But when this same general
legislative, executive and judicial ex-
penditure appropriation bill appears
again in the house. it has the bill in
creasing the speakers salary from $S,-
600 to $4,000 per annum. the pay of
congressman from $1,000 to $500, the
81 500 clerk allowance to members, and
a salary grab for two years time for
the congressman who had already been
elected. This bill finally passed on ap-
rroval of conference report, February
is. 1907. Where is Mr.. Miller's vote on
this bill? Mr.. Miller knows there is
none. 1t was put through without a
record vote just as hundreds of things
are put through for the convenience OF
members. So they can be with the
machine in Washington and against it
at home. Mr. Miller was wrong when
he said the record showed he voted
against this bill. So much for his bluff
number one.
Mr. Miller says the state platform
did not declare for revision of the
house rules. hut declared for 'modi-
fication' to the end that a member
could secure action on his own meas
ures. Whatever difference there is be-
tween the two words. Mr.. Miller is en-
titled to. But he says he fulfilled that
platform by voting for the calendar
Wednesday amendment, March 1, 1909
I am perfectly willing that Mr.. Miller
shall rest his record for reform of the
rules on that vote. Rules live only for
the session at which they are adopted.
Here was an amendment, passed with
in the last three days of the session
and providing in its own terms that 1T
had no application to the last two
weeks of a session. 1t left the whole
matter within the power of the speak
er and the committee on rules, just as
the amendment was designed to do"
Geo. A. Neeley of Hutchinson takes
umbrage at the Dawson quotation that
he, Neeley, hdQ aQmlIJ0O LnaI ne was
an attorney for the lumber trust. So
Mr.. NeeIey, who devoted most of his
speech at the Democratic banquet last
week to Mr.. Dawson, again goes after
the attorney for the railroad board in
the following letter:
Hutchinson, Kan, Feb. 26.
ITO the Editor Topeka State Journal:
I'm your paper of the 25th inst.
there appeared an interview with Mr..
John 8. Dawson, attorney for the
board of railroad commissioners, in
which he is quoted as having con-
versation with me, in which conversa-
tion he stated I said:
"'Yes, I know that the attorney
general started something against the
lumber trust some time ago. I was
attorney for the lumber trust in that
trouble
THE above statement made by
Mr.. Dawson is absolutely untrue and
without any foundation whatever. I
am not now, and have not been since
I came to this state, the attorney for
any lumberman, lum bermen, trusts,
com mbination or association of lumber
men.
TT is evident that Mr.. Dawson is
trying to save his political face by an
endeavor to turn the joke on me-
The fact remains that Mr. Dawson
wrote Mr.. Eek of Mulvane, that there
was no doubt but that the railroads
and the lumber trust were in togetl1-
er and that it is a more vicious COM
bination than the Standard Oil COM
pany, but that he could not force
the Santa Fe railroad company to
join with a connecting carrier in the
making of a rate from the point of
origin to Mulvane, that would be
reasonable and Just and remove pro-
hibitive discrimination.
Mr.. Dawson in company with Balie
Waggener. general attorney for