The independent-reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1909-1955, 1913-08-21
Very truly yours,
MERTON T. GOODRICH.

MER1ON L. GOODhl1hs
The article in the open forum of
the issue of August 7th, contains sew
eral assertions which are worthy Of
investigation and it is also significant
because of its omissions.
In the list of city votes the vote of
OldtoWn is omitted. OldtoWn has
held a municipal election since Nov
ember and it was carried by the Pro-
gressives. The exact figures are not
at hand, but the fact remains that
this Progressive victory was left out
of the list.
We leave it to the people to decide
why this Progressive victory was
omitted by a Republican writer. We
hope it was due to carelessness. Ban
gor and Calais were probably left out
because the Progressives made no
contest in them.
Every one knows that municipal
elections are decided very largely on
local issues. Yet, even on that basis,
outside of Bangor and Calais, the
figures of the issue of the eth show
that the Republican Party after more
than fifty years of organization was
able to carry only two Maine cities,
Rockland and PASSPORT. The Pro-
gressives in less than six months after
the formation of their party did as
WELL carrying Auburn and Oldtown.
Victories count more than percent
ages,
The figures presented the 18th in
tend to show that the Republican
Party gained strength in the munich
pal elections held last winter and
spring. Suppose they did. Two
weeks ago the Republican Party of
the Third district held primary. The
Republican primary vote was only
one-fourth of the Republican primary
vote a year ago. Even last Noyem-
Der, the Republican Party had one
third of the Democratic
strength Now remember that this
primary was held six months after
the municipal elections quoted in the
18th. The Republican party in the
primary was able to show only one
fourth of the anti-Democratic strength
which it showed in the primary year
ago. For example, in Somerset Coun-
tv a year ago the Republican primary
vote was about 1900. Two weeks
ago it was about 600. The falling
off in the other counties was nearly
as bad. This shows that even if the
Republicans did gain last winter the
tide has again turned against them
leaving them weaker than before.
1t is unfortunate that the author of
the article in the 18th issue omitted
his name. The position of the pres
ent editor of the Independent-Report-
er is absolutely fair and is worthy of
the highest praise. He desires that
all parties present their views with
fairness to each other and with re-
spect toward all. He can not assume
responsibility for the contents of the
letters appearing in an open column.
1t is the feeling of the writer that in
justice anyone making a statement In
these columns should assume a per-
sonal responsibility for his own state
ments AS it stands now no one is
responsible for the assertions in the
issue of the 18th.
The first assertion is that the Re
publican and Progressive candidates
believe in practically the same things.
A sweeping statement is always weak
unless supported by facts. What are
the facts on this point?
Take reciprocity for instance. 1t
is not a dead issue. That act still
awaits only the approval of Canada
to go into effect. Not single Repub-
lican member of Congress is working
for its repeal
Last November Mr.. Peters stood for
Taft and his reciprocity and so far
as we know stands for them today.
Has Mr. Peters ever said he would
work to repeal Taft's reciprocity? If
he should say SO now one could not re-
frain from wondering if he had
changed his mind to catch a few
votes. We do not think Mr.. Peters
would do that sort of thing. Like
the Republican congressman to whom
Mr.. Peters points, he stands for Taft's
reciprocity. The fact is, the only