Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-06-25
political ADVERTISEMENT
AN OPEN LETTER FROM

political Advertisement
AN OPEN LETTER FROM
SENATOR BESSESEN.
I Mr.. Young has posted up in the
| various parts of the district his so
called open letter. But very small
part of it is his letter, since the
first column is composed of earlier
newspaper comments, and the main
portion is an editorial from F. E. Pack
ard of the Bismarck Times, and the
right hand column a letter from Theo.
Koffel.
1t should be born in mind that Mr..
Packard is highly interested in Mr..
Young's success, having worked hard
for him, and having been aided by
Mr. Young in the financing of his pa.
per, The Bismarck Times.
In all Of my campaign addresses l
have never referred to Mr.. Young's
nationality or to his coming from Can.
ada to this country. A mans birth
or parentage is not material as far as
mans ability and honesty are con-
cerned.
But ones record as a public official
is highly material, and Mr.. Young has
made the statement repeatedly that
he stands upon his record, and there
by invites an examination of that rec
ord.
One paper did mention that Mr..
Young came from Canada, and that
when he came to Valley City he ran
for alderman before taking out his
second papers as a citizen. Such con-
duct of running for office and quail
flying before a person has become a
citizen of this country is part of
his official record and does throw
light upon his character.
While Mr.. Young says in his letter
that he has made a clean campaign
and has refrained from making an at
tack on opposing candidates, l per-
sonally know that he has made at
tacks upon both White AMI Kirk,
claiming them to be standpatters and
making other charges against them.
Mr.. Young through Mr.. Packard ad-
mits that he did vote against s. B. No.
209, a bill to prevent and punish the
desecration of the United States
flag. blouse Journal 1901, PIP. S71-2).
But while Young voted against that
bill such patriots as the Speaker R.
M. Pollock voted for it. It became
law in 1901 and is still the law of this
State never having been changed
since then.
But in 1905, four years after Mr..
Young had voted against this law
making it crime to desecrate and
insult the American flag, possibly rea-
lizing that his vote against the meas.
ure looked bad upon the records, he
naturally attempted to rectift it by
introducing the same bill with triv.
ial amendment tackled to it but his
bill did not pass the legislature, and
did not become a law.
Before that law was passed in 1901
there was no law upon that subject;
then If Mr.. Young claims that he was
in favor of such law, why did he not
then vote for it instead of waiting
four years before introducing another
bill along similar lines to turn the
attention away from his former vote?
The records show that in 1905 Mr..
Young voted against the motion that
the Primary Bill 8. B. No. SO be plac-
ed on its third reading for final pas
sage. The State senators and inspec-
tors who were then present and heard
his argument against the Primary
Bill remember that he stated many
things against the merits Of the bill,
that it was entirely unconstitutional
and that the people were not ready
for such a great innovation.
Mr.. Young does not himself deny
that he opposed the Primary Law in
1905 at all times up to the point of
the final vote thereon. Mr.. Young ad-
mits that he voted against the 1nitia-
tive and Referendum H. B. No. rs In
1907, applying to both the laws and
constitution and tried to justify him
self upon the ground that the people
might want to vote upon resubmis-
sion If this law was granted them.
Is that not a confession by him that
he does not have faith in the ability
of the people Of this State to rule
themselves?
If the people are fit to have a par
tial Initiative and Referendum as to
the statutory laws only, then hold
that they are fit and qualified to have
the entire initiative and referendum
as to all laws and the constitution.
And this is the position that all true
progressives now take, viz. that the
people are fit to govern themselves
and that that right belongs to them
inherently, and that no man, whether
it be Mr.. Young or Mr.. Taft has a
right to take it away from them.
He admits that he voted against
H. B. No. 1856 providing for the exter-
mination of zophers and tries to just