Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-01-30
The next day, after She battle, there
was q dearth Of bakery food IN town,
and the hotels and restaurants were
put to it to feed their customers.

81 E-,.LE rE IT, y .H-aLE.E .AEH E- 4&l
The report of the COMMITTEES on per-
manent organization, which was made
after midnight. expedited in some de-
gree the nights work, for after that
was disposed OF, the end soon came.
But for several hours both sides
Tough desperately to win. Pettigrew
would not concede defeat. and dila-
tory motions md long rolls calls pro-
longcd the struggle. The first county
to slump from the Red River Valley
forces was Cass, col Plulnmer voting
all but one vote for the Mckenzie side.
Geo. G.. Beadsley refused to change,
and his vote went to PettigreW. n
Grand Forks was called 1t was voted
solid for the south, and much enthu-
siasm was manifested by the Petit
grew faction. But it did not last
long, for R. Fl. Hoskins swung Penn
bina county against them, n was
followed by M. H. Morrill, with a solid
vote from Richland county. THEN
John r. Barker, of Trail, who had a
pocket full of proxies, voted them for
the north; and Dan Yorkey, ais a
proxy holder, landed Walsh county in
the Mckenzie camp. All then, was
over but the shouting. 1t vas past
four o'clock in the morning when this
happened: Z. but in less thar half an
hour afterwards. two delegates to the
National Republican convention. N.
E. Nelson n John l.. Jolly, were
elected the Territorial executive COM
mittee appointed and the final BUSH
ness of the convention wound up. At
broad daylight in the morning the
weary delegates repaired to their
hotels. and m Of the memorable con-
ventions of the territory passed into
history.
While our Grand Forks delegations
accomplished the purpose Of it's mis-
sion, and returned home with scnlps
in our belts, we were not pleased With
tho action of our Valley adhererts.
All who participated in the Pettigrew
caucus were in ono bound to stand
by the compact therein implied. In
that caucus the issue upon which they
were elected as delegates. e. the
recognition of the Winship delegation
was approved and settled. and they
achieved all they had set out to do.
BY all the rules of honorable proce-
dure they should have stood by the
Pettigrew program to the end. 1t
took several years for the south to
forget this ignoble >%incident;l but they
knew and I knew the real source OF
the recreancy. Some of the delegates
were persuaded to change by the plea
of a solid north, an appeal to sectional
prejudice. while others were pur-
chased outright. One man told me,
himself, that he got ten dollars for his
vote; that he had to get money some
where to pay his board bill, and that
was the easiest way to get it. An
other man, the sole representative of
a populousN county, whose proxies he
held. was said to ave received $500.
Others received smaller sums, and
still others were influenced by promise
of political favors some time in the
future.
I assume that the question will be
asked: What was all this fuss
about? Why such q desperate strug-
gle between men over things APP
~parently SO proftless and intangible? %
And the answer is that the whole at
air was Il contest for leadership be-
tween rival bosses. The winner
would control two delegates to the
national convention and the national
committeeman; and the controller of
these forces would be the patronage
dispenser Of the territory. We had
political cars in those days and most
people yielded supinely to their every
command. When the slogan, "Stand
by the Party was shouted down the
line. the average citizen would hustle
votes at the and kow-tow to
the bosses as thong his life depended
upon h amount of servile work he
could do for his political master. Alb
iect servility was as manifest then as
it is today in party rule.