Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-14
PROGRESSIVE COMMITTEE
ANSWERS HICHBORN LETTER.
Fourteen Members Defend Their Position
In Opposition to Other Leading Pro-
gressives of the State.
Progressive Headquarters.

TO the Progressive Party of Maine
We feel justified in replying to the
belated letter signed by Charles S.
Hichborn, Athill L. Irving and Henry
Il. Dunnack, printed under date of
Nov goth, and published in the Ken
nebec Journal Dec. 9TH, incidentally
because it denies our authority to act
as your State Committee, but chiefly
because it claims that we assumed
the power ito abrogate" the principles
of the Progressive platform and
claims that we advocated policies not
Endorsed thereby; and further, with
out the support of the party, urged
upon the Senators and Representa-
tives the AMAZING proposition of
violating a state wide primary in the
matter of the United States Senator
This questioning the authority of
the Progressive State Committee
comes at a very late date and IS
plainly intended for another purpose;
also, it is rather an ungracious asser-
ton, since Mr.. Irving was an active
member of that committee represent
ing Aroostook county: but he resigned
at the Bangor meeting prior to the
Committees vote on the resolution TO
urge ProgressiVes to caucus as a
party as he was shortly to leave the
State. Mr.. Hichborn advised as to
the membership of the committee.
Mr. Dunnack, to whom the party is
under great obligations for his excel
lent work on the stump, received his
assignments for speaking from this
committee. More than all this, the
State authorities recognized the Of
fetal authorities and regularity of this
committee. These gentlemen are
estopped from denying our authority.
Why is the question now raised? Is
it to prejudice the public mind upon
the chief allegations in their further
Indictment, to wit. That. without the
authority of the party. the committee
assumed the additional right of urg-
ing Progressive legislators to adopt
that AMAZING PROPOSITION re-
lating to U. S. Senator?
Replying generally, we will say that,
after free discussion in a full COM
mittee meeting, at which many
prominent members of the party were
present and participant in the discus
sion an informal or advisory vote
was taken by all present not members
of the committee upon the resolution
advising and urging members of the
Legislature who belonged to the Pro-
gressiye party to unite in Progressive
party action regarding candidates for
office and party measures. The vote
so taken stood IA to 2 in favor of the
resolution. Later, the COMMITTEES
adopted the resolution by vote of IL
to g.
Answering the charges in this let
ter more specifically. we submit herein
the reasons for our action to your
candid consideration and judgment.
We shall not resort to perfervid gem
eralities. We rely upon the facts
We seek only the party's future we'll
being. We are not seekers for Of
flee: and we feel that those who
signed the letter referred to Will, upon
reflection, realize the unfairness of
such suggestion. We will not be re-
counted by suggesting that Mr.. HIGH
born and the others are OVER-IN-
FLUENCED by their solicitUde for a
candidate, because. surrounded by the
political atmosphere in which they
live. they may not realize such infiu
ence. To act for the best good of the
Progressive Party and TO COUN-
TERACT THE EFFORTS OF OUR
OPPONENTS TO BREAK UP OUR
PARTY'S ORGANIZATION was our
purpose; and, that we may be clear
in our explanation, let us briefly re-
view some facts of the past year.
At the Republican convention in
Bangor, the contest was whether
Roosevelt or Taft delegates should be
chosen. The Progressive Republicans
controlled that convention. Mr.. Bur
leigh, who was a candidate before the
primaries. then and until after the
Republican National convention, gave
the impression that he was friendly
to Col. Roosevelt's candidacy. Then
came the June primaries-before the
Republican convention at Chicago.
MARK YOU-THE PROGRESSIVE
PARTY, as a PARTY, WAS NOT
THEN IN EXISTENCE. The candi-
dates of the Democratic and Republi-
can parties We're consequently the
only ones voted for. The hope and
expectation was that the Republican
National Convention would so act
that we all could unitedly support its
State and National candidates. You
know the results of that convention.
We appreciated the complicated
political situation in the State. We
realized that the vital issue was the
open notification of State laws. How
to act wisely and in accord with our
sense of public duty We're questions
which confronted Progressive Repub-
licans who met in convention in Port
land July 81, 1912. 1t was there vot-
ed to support at the September cleo
ton the Republican State candidates
the Governor and State Auditor,
who We're the only State officers in
nomination-and to take no action
regarding any other, but chance the
results, whether candidates elected
would be Progressives or Republi-
cans. :,
This was acceptable to Republicans.
1t was acceptable to Progressives.
Progressives could not secure repre-
sentation at the primaries because the
party was not in existence when the
primaries We're held. Voters knew
that many candidates for the Legis-
lature were Progressives. Everyone
knew, or ought to have known, that
Progressives as well as Republicans,