The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1919-05-15
SEN. HAMER REPLIES
He Takes the Milaca Times Ito Task
and Gives the Facts in Sulli-
van-WilcOx Contest.
OQuotes Official Journal of Senate
to Show Proceedings in THE
Case Referred ito.
Milaca, May III, 1919.


TO the Editor of the UnIon:
I wish to thank you for thee compli-
mentary remarks you have made con-
corning me and my work in the recent
session of the legislature. 1taappears,
however, that such re1naf1saabout me
aare more than a certain defeated as
>, pirant could stand, and i'm the last is
, sue of the Milaca Times The takes you
! to task in an editorial under the cap
ton of Feeding the People. Slush ?"
and asks:
"Well, why is it the Union fails to
tell just how Senator Hanervoted and
what he has done that was for the
best interests Of the farmers? Was it
his vote to exclude Senator; Wilcox, the
farmer elected from Washington coun-
ty, from serving in the senate, which
enabled a corporation lawyer to unseat
him."
He asks some more questions just
cas- easy to answer, but space will per-
NIT of the consideration Of only one
at this time, so the others need not be
mentioned here. The Milaca Times
has a penchant for harpingcon this sub
ject and, so far as it is concerned, it
would not be worth while +to~pay any
attention to it, because It knows that
its representation of the matter is not
a3correct.
For the information of t1aeppeople of
the district who may not know, will
give the main facts of the history of
that Sullivan Wilcox contest.
When = is matter came before the
senate it was referred to the commit
tee on elections. One of the members
Of this committee was 'nonpartisan
league man (Senator 1ee(. "Fhe COM
~nittee met on January "a to consider
the matter e members present and
absent). In that meeting there were
votes taken on six different questions
relating to the charges against Wilcox.
On all questions of fact there was no
dissenting VOTE The record reads on
each, ""7 ayes and no nays" When
they voted on the question Of the in
'tention Of Wilcox in making the false
charges against his opponent before
the election, the vote was ;''7 to T."
Lee voted in the negative but ex-
planned that the result would "lil1efv"
be what the others held was "intend-
ed"
On the 28th of January the commit
tee held another meeting with all nine
members present. The conduct in the
Woodbury. town hall on election day
was taken up, and they voted chat the
4: conduct was illegal and that these
acts were a~violation of the corrupt
practices ~act"' g ayes and no nays).
So Mr.. Lee must have so voted.
When the committee reported there
was both "a majority and minority
report. AS the former was never sub
rnitted to a vote it need not be given
space here. The latter reads as fol-
lows:
Resolved, that ~Contestee W. w.
Wilcox be entitled to seat in the
senate of the state of Minnesota, as
senator duly elected from the 43rd
senatorial district of The state of Min
nesota at the election held therefor
November s, 1918, and that he retain
his seat as senator from that district
in said body"
While the committee had the matter
under consideration, and before they
made any report, was repeatedly ap-
preached by the friends Of Wilcox to
support him in the contest. The con-
siderations urged were: First, that as
:. -sman he would be more fit for the
J position than the contestant. Second,
that if we should expe] Wilcox the
nonpartisan league press would cut
loose, and whether right or wrong,
would make things unpleasant. Third
that / myself could not afford to be
too particular because there were
''stickers" brought into the voting
places in my own district. They failed
to note the difference there is between
'stiekers" and campaign literature l
am very sorry that lawmakers should
so far fail to see how incompatible all
such considerations are with the judi
cial manner in which one should APP
proach subject Of that kind. may
5also state here that no one made any
suggestion to me from the other side
Of the case, and never told any one
how I intended to vote.
After the committee had agreed by
unanimous vote that there was IL
legality and violation of the corrupt
practices act, it is more than I could
understand how any part If there