The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1910-11-04

\
and Mr.. Wilson has the return card
showing the governor has received the
letter. Yet the governor has not re-
piled. Mr.. Wilson'S letter, which is
self-explanatory, follows:
Seattle, Wash, Oct. Is, 1910.
Hon. NJ. E. Hay, Olympia.
Dear Sir: There is before me
copy Of a statement purporting TO be
authorized by you in which you refer
to circular issued by this league,
holding present judges Of the supreme
court responsible for the passage Of the
law which took the nomination Of
members Of that body from the direct
primary and returned it to the conven-
ton system. You say Of the circular
in question: 1t is seldom that I have
seen a more unfair, untruthful, ungen-
erous statement.
1t is presumed that man holding
yeur exalted position is in the habit Of
carefully weighing his words. The
people, therefore, have a right to ex-
pect that you are prepared to show in
detail that the circular issued by this
league is in fact unfair, untruthfuP
and 'ungenerous.' To be specific:
Do you deny that Frank T. Post,
corporation lawyer OF Spokane, was one
of the earliest advocates before the leg
islature 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 during the
1909 session of the legislature.
Do you deny that the judicial con-
ventiont law, as presented to the legis-
lature, was drawn by c. Will Shafer, an
appointee and servant of the supreme
court? Shaffer admits such to be the
case.
DO you deny that justices of the
supreme court requested members OF
the house and senate to vote for the
bill? Former legislators, whose attl-
davits 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
summoned into a conference with two
members of the court he was prevailed
upon to change his position and sup
port it? If so, a well known citizen
stands ready to state over his own sig
nature that he had the foregoing facts
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
message written vetoing it, but that
members of the supreme court pre-
vailed on you to change your mind
and sign it? A well known citizen
states that in the presence OF a witness
you declared to him that such was the
case. Another well known citizen
states that, again, in the presence OF a
witness, you declared it to be your pur-
pose TO veto the bill. Why did you
change your mind?
do you deny that members OF the
supreme court exerted themselves to
prevent the repeal Of the Judicial con-
vention law by the special Legislature
of 1909? Members Of that body de-
clare such to be the case.
do you deny that, while five JUS
tees OF the supreme court accepted
nomination from the Tacoma conven-
ton Of August 3, not one Of them,
although some of them were actually
present in the convention hall, lifted
his voice in protest when the conven-
ton rejected a resolution pledging the
republican party to the repeal OF the
judicial convention law? If such IS
the case, then you are the only man In
the state who has the hardihood to
do so.
DO you deny that, while the canol-
dates Of the independent non-partisan
judiciary party stand pledged, in case
the nomination of supreme court judges
is by the next Legislature restored to
the people, to resign before the pri-
mary election OF 1912 and submit the
question of their denomination and re-
election to the voters Of the state, the
candidates of the Tacoma convention
have thus far ignored formal request
that they make a similar pledgeF II
such is the case, then you display sur
prising and lamentable Ignorance OF
current history.
THE foregoing are plain questions,
couched in unmistakable language,
and, as you have made it necessary to
ask them, they demand plain and un-
mistakable answers at your hands. The
people of this state will pardon many
shortcomings in their governor, but
they do expect him to speak the truth
even when defending court to one
of whose questionable decisions ne