The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1912-05-23
Be bound in advance against voting

OOuiu III autuuCC u6diab fotIt6
FOR the primary, for 1t came up for d
vote ON the floor OF the convention. 1t
Is up to Mr.. Dillon to explain again
he wishes to pose as an original
advocate OF the primary system In
South Dakota,
Mr.. Dillon lodged entirely the
question why Re opposed the anti
discrimination law, passed for the
purpose Of preventive the oil trust
and The lumber truat from selling at
different prices In different localltiesl
In order to destroy competition. Mr..
Dillon, In referring to this, went off
into a talk about the 1903 law low
ering the test on gasoline. That Is an
entirely different measure and there
fore 1t must be concluded that he
has no explanation to make for his
fight against the most important anti
trust legislation ever passed by the
state,
The Republican was accused by
Mr.. Dillon OF telling q malicious lie"
in stating that he refused to vote an
increase In the membership of the
supreme court in 1909 until he was
given a promise of the appointment
OF X. ID. Trip, for twenty years a
Milwaukee railroad attorney, as Judge
of the First district. The Republican
was of course actuated by no malace.
but was simply taking up Mr.. Dillon's
challenge to comparison of his record
with B%rafson's and it had positive
and impressive information in support
of the statement that Mr.. Dillon did
exact Trips appointment as a price
for his vote. But ever If 1t were ma
licious," 1t could not be more so
than Mr.. Dillon's Misrepresentation,
repeated Wednesday evening, by
which he gave his hearers to under
stand that Mr.. Bronson had been en-
gaged IN railroad building, when Mr.
Dillon knows that he never Invested
a dollar in any railroad company ant
never drew a dollar in dividends from
any railro- d company. But as tt
Trips appointment, the really essen
tial question is whether Dillon dit
support this railroad attorney for
iudgship. Mr.. Dillon admitted in hi
! statement that he had done SO. Thu
we now have his own word In sup
I port of the charge.
Concerning his vote for Senate Bill
IN in the 1909 session, increasing
the attorneys fee for foreclosini
mortgages from $40 to $25, Mr.. Dill
Ion said simply that a poor attorne
should not be begrudged this amour
for his services. He said nothin
. about the poor fellow who under tn
nw is compelled to pay this fee i
redeeming his property from n mort
gage sale. Tho question asked of hir
vas whether in voting for this mca
: sure he was acting for the interest
Of himself, an attorney, or for the In
erests of his constit tents, and h
iidn't answer the question. He doe
= not deny he voted for the bill, as 1t /
accorded on page 1175 of the Senat
Journal for 1909 Mr.. Dillon himself |
'ated as worth not less than $4,000
. md so 1t appears he was not in cryini
need of larger fees for his legal Ser
vices.
Mr.. Dillon didn't know about tn
light that Branson mede in the 100
ession to defeat a bill, backed b
leaders of tn: organization, maxim
IN appropriation of $780, 00 for i'm
)rovements on the state capitol. Thi
measure was fathered by Alec John
son, lobbyist for the Northwestern
abroad, because most of the none
would have gone to his company TO
hauling stone into Pierre for the pro
posed addition. Branson was chair
nan of the appropriation committee
md he refused to allow the bill t
;ome from his committee. The fgh
went on until he was served with nc
Ice that he would be kicked out O
the organization if it was not forth
coming. Mr.. BransOn old, them To q