Morris tribune., 1920-07-30

Following are the addresses de-
liVered in the debate on the Babcock
Road Plan on Visitors Day at the
West Central School of Agriculture.
Supt. P. E. Miller as chairman,
introduced Henry T. Ronning of
Glenwood who spoke as follows:-
The Negative Opens
1t will probably strike you rather
peculiar for the negative to speak
first. When l was invited to speak
at this meeting, I was lead to believe
that there would be joint discus
sion on the proposed Amendment No.
1. For certain reasons, I requested
the privilege of opening the discus
sion. I believe that the speakers in
favor of the amendment could better
enlighten us on the subject in ques-
tiOn if they were informed as to
what our objections are. There may
be some selfish reasons for my re-
questing to speak first, for on very
numerous occasions when l have
happened to state that 1 was opposed
to this Amendment in presence Of
advocates thereof, they have immedi-
ately asked me this question. Why
are you opposed to it? have stated
my reasons and that has ended the
matter. 1 have
RECEIVED NO ENLIGHTENMENT
on the subject, but the general re-
plies to my objections have been,
you are a Bolshevik, you do not
believe in improving the country, you
are not a progressive, you are a
stand-patter." Early in the year,
talked at a meeting of Club where
committee from an organization in
favor of this measure had requested
to be permitted to be present They
came armed with a stenographer and
eagerly looked in their local papers
! for reply to the statements I had
made. After three weeks, came an
article on the editorial page of a
local paper written by coward who
dared not give his name, but at the
end of the article appeared the words
in large capitals ga VOTER" No
reply was made to my statements,
but he called me a pettifogger, a
'leaner and not a leader" he said
that was not in favor of any public
improvement that required the ex-
penditure of one cent raised by tax
alton. This was simply a personal
attack on me and I could not reply
to it without showing that he was
worse man than I, and as there
is too much personal abuse already in
the county where this happened, I
did not reply. For my personal bene-
fit, would like to know if am en-
tirely wrong in my contentious. I
have made an honest study of this
question and the statements I will
make here will indicate my honest
opinion.
This is not a general debate where
the only question involved is, on
what side are the best debaters, but
the question in your minds is,
HOW SHALL VOIE
on the amendment at the coming
election, and you will not settle this
question at this meeting, but you
will keep on studying it until cleo
tion, and then you will vote accord
ing to your own best judgment, not
according to what this or that man
has told you.
While Amendment No. says
nothing whatever about hard sur
face roads, or any other particular
kind of road to be constructed there
under, still we cannot discuss this
amendment without reference to hard
surface roads. The state has been
flooded with literature by which you
are lead to believe that if this
amendment passes, the state will
have
1000 MILES OF HARD SURFACE
ROADS
From many of the daily and weekly
newspapers in the state, you get the
same information. 1t is claimed that
it was stated at the convention of the
County Commissioners and Auditors
held in the twin cities last winter,
that if we pass this amendment, and
the legislature should fail to provide
for hard surface roads, it would be
like taking money under false pre-
lenses. I agree with this statement
and add to it that it would also be
like attaining votes under false nre-
lenses.
1 have duly considered these claims,
namely that if we pass amendment
No. /, the state will construct 1000
miles of hard surface road, and all
Of the other roads in the state will
be graded and gravelled without in
ereasing the tax rate one penny, and
my, conclusion is best expressed by
-. esra