The Algona Upper Des Moines from Algona, Iowa on October 18, 1899 · Page 4
Get access to this page with a Free Trial
Click to view larger version

The Algona Upper Des Moines from Algona, Iowa · Page 4

Publication:
Location:
Algona, Iowa
Issue Date:
Wednesday, October 18, 1899
Page:
Page 4
Cancel
Start Free Trial

Page 4 article text (OCR)

THE UPPJEK L>£8 M0INES: ALGONA, IOWA, WEDNESDAY* OCTOBER 18, 1899, m t*A*. QY INOrtAM A WARREN. Terms to £ub«cfib*r*. One copy, one year 11.60 On« copy, six months 76 One copy, three month* 40 Sent to any address at above rates. R«mlt by draft, money order, or express order at our risk. Rutes of advertising Bent on application. The Trust Problem. In another column THE UPPER DBS MOINES reproduces Senator Allison's very thorough discussion of the trust problem. He reviews the history of recent efforts to suppress monopolies in this country, and proves conclusively that there is not only no political issue involved, but that as a matter of fact neither party has any very definite ideas or plans as to what ought to be done. He shows that even if a constitutional amendment giving United States officials the authority to interfere with state corporations would be effective Mr. Bryan cannot advocate it and stand on the democratic platform, which denounces any further centralization of power. He shows further that for ten years the republicans have been in both state nnd nation passing statutes to reach the evil, and that, as he has repeatedly stated before, he and all his colleagues stand ready to vote for any proposed legislation that promises to kill monopoly without killing industry. The difficulty with the trust problem is two-fold. In the first place the trust is nothing but a plain corporation of large dimensions. In the second place the injurious effects of such large corporations are as yet speculative and not real. It is difficult to tell how to stamp out a big or monopolistic corporation without stamping out at the same time all other corporations. And it is difficult to tell which of these big corporations may prove to be ruinous monopolies until through their operation either labor is oppressed or the consumer robbed. As long as the trust pays good wages and sells low enough to prevent competition, the evil does not come so closely home to the public. The original trust was easily reached. At first all the corporations dealing in a certain line would organize a separate trust company, which took general charge of the business of all. It is such companies as these that anti-trust legislation has been directed against. But now instead of aseparate trust company all the corporations dealing in a certain line organize a new corporation, sell out to it, in place of their stock in the local company get stock in the big company, and so in fact become a new corporation. It is just as though the 20 creameries in Kossuth county should sell out to one big creamery company and take stock in it for their pay. These new corporations organize under state law, and are mostly located in New Jersey, which has openly invited them and promised them immunity from state interference. The United States cannot go into New Jersey to stop them, and if New Jersey will not act the question is how to reach them. Moreover, where is the dividing line to be drawn? It is legitimate for 50 farmers to organize a creamery corporation. It would be legitimate for the 20 creameries in Kossuth to consolidate. Supposing all the creameries in Iowa should go into one big company. Where does monopoly begin, and how can a monopolistic corporation be cut off and those that are not monopolistic be uninjured? It is not popular to say so but it Is fact nevertheless that up to date th trusts have flourished by undersellin competition. The Standard oil monop oly handles only 62 per cent, of the oi sold in the United States, and it i probably the best established trus there is. The big department store flourish because by their close organi zation they can do business at less cos than individual merchants, and the claim put forth by the trust advocate is that this 'wave of big incorporation means better organization of industry and cheaper production. The evils o trust organization are not yet felt. I is not at all likely that all the antici pated evils ever will be felt. And ye the American people are not so ooneti tuted that they will submit to unregu lated monopolies, even if they are in the hands of the most benevolent men in the world. If the organization of industry into these big corporations is a good thing, it will be put under public control of some kind. In the case pf the railways, which by their nature as well as by their consolidation are monopolies, the people have eatisfac tprily solved the problem by industrial commissions. It is entirely possible that la- the end these big trust corporations will remain, and thftt they will be under the supervision of a public commission, The real probability is, however, that while a great many of the oombi- ^atfons of capital now organizing are legitimate and will work out for good, |h,e majority of tfeepj are " blue sky" ventures, tfee real victims of which tire the deluded mortals who are buying DwHug every' hp^m perjoj JB pp essentially the same as those now organizing. Only last year a famous English "promoter" was unearthed who had gulled the aristocracy and through it the speculators out of $70,000,000. The history of financial operations is lined with the wrecks of gullible Investors and shines with the brilliant exploits of schemers and Napoleons of Finance. We do not have to go farther away than Sioux City in the boom of 10 years ago, to find a local example, while the recent meteoric career of Joseph Letter is still fresh in mind. There has never been a period of prosperity since our present industrial system took form that some scheme has not been devised for catching the unwary, from selling worthless trees for tall delivery to issuing millions of dollars of watered stock in corporations having no visible assets. The present is not unlike the past. The difficulties of the present will doubtless adjust themselves as those of the past have done. The gullible are with us always and the gullible were made to mourn. Gen. Weaver's Argument. Gen. Weaver probably made as good a statement of the anti-expansion argument in his Algona speech as can be made. Age has dimmed the general's fire a little, and a small audience did not improve his temper, but the general is still a formidable stumper, a shrewd and able advocate. He can make still a partial statement of the facts with more seeming sincerity and earnestness than most men. This is what he did in Algona, and the more earnest he became the more partial was his statement of facts, as a rule. A fair sample of his whole speech was his statement of the law of nations regarding the allegiance of peoples whose territory has been transferred. Although he professed to have read Congressman Cousins' speech and to be answering it, he never even referred to the decisions of the United States supreme court, which are the law of the land and which Mr. Cousins cited at some length on this point, but after reading several selections from works on international law he left his audience with the impression that there was no other authority, and asserted flatly that as a matter of law the Filipinos are under no obligations to respect our authority. His speech abounded in like misleading statements, some of which amounted to flat misrepresentations which are not excusable even in a stump speech, while most of them were sophistical, shrewd, and probably legitimate if his audience was ignorant enough to be mislead by them. The general's first point that won applause was this: Iowa belongs to you, you have a right to rule it, no one questions it, the Phillipine islands belong to the Filipinos, they have a right to rule it, why do you question it? Then he cited the bible to show that the Lord has set the boundaries for all the tribes. Now it ought to have been apparent to his audience that if the Lord set boundaries in the United States for any tribes it was for the Indians. How does Iowa belong to us? It was taken from the Indians and was bought from the French, both transactions being exactly contrary to all the general was saying. His reference to Iowa was a complete answer to his entire speech and yet the general was as sanctimonious as a preacher about it. The general's second point was his citation from Vattel to the effect that when the territory of a people is transferred the people are not bound in law to support the new government. As already noted the general was not candid in not reviewing the authorities cited by Congressman Cousins on this point. But even with his statement his audience ought to have had no trouble in recalling what happened when Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory of which Iowa is a part, which occurred forty years af,ter Vattel's book was written. In the southern district of Louisiana, named then the Territory of Orleans, were 50,000 people " including an old and established society" says Adams, who shed tears when the French flag went down and the American flag went up, but who were annexed exactly as the Filipinos have been annexed, only Jefferson had no provocation by way of war for taking them, Gen. Weaver said the Filipinos are legally and morally justified in Sghting us. His audience ought.to have been able to see readily that if this is so that Sitting Bull was right and that the Indians at Wounded Knee were legally and morally right. In 'act the Sioux would be justified now n coming to Algona quietly and in cleaning the town site, on this theory. The fact is that Chief Justice Marshall held in the case of Louisiana that the ' right to govern may be the inevitable ipnsequenpe pf the right to acquire ter- itory," and although' be was a whig f whigs, he sustained Jefferson in coia- the French of New Orleans to Thomas Jefferson, while he was Ignoring what Jefferson did. ^Thomas Jefferson wrote the phrase " the con- Bent of the governed"—and it contains a great truth—and Jefferson, if anybody, knew exactly what he meant by it. When be came to apply it to the inhabitants of New Orleans did he turn them loose at once to do as they pleased or did he give them a stable government to fit them for final freedom? Jefferson established a government in New Orleans in which the inhabitants had no share whatever, in which he himself as president appointed the governor and secretary, a legislative council of 13 members, and all the judicial officers, while the right of trial by jury was restricted in both civil and criminal matters—a government compared to tjie one proposed in the Philippines, as arbitrary as an oriental despotism. And yet Jefferson was sustained by Madison, who helped draft the bill, and by all the men who had to do with establishing this government, and Jefferson's policy in the Louisiana territory proved him to be a statesman of the first rank. Gen. Weaver's final appeal was that the Filipinos be given the same chance with the Cubans. He did not state to his audience that our responsibilities in Cuba and the Philippines are entirely different. We have assumed no obligations whatever on the part of Cuba, and could leave it tomorrow. But in the Philippines this country could be held by every foreign power for losses suffered through a failure on our part to preserve order. But laying that aside, the general was disingenuous in quoting Admiral Dewey. He said Dewey considered the Filipinos better fitted to maintain independence than the Cubans, which is true, but he did not say that Dewey considered the Filipinos unfit to maintain independence, which is part of the same interview. Gen. Weaver cannot quote a single responsible authority to the effect that the Filipinos are capable of instituting and maintaining a stable government, and the fact that the democrats in congress forced us to agree to let Cuba try it does not change the situation in either place. The democrats were bound to recognize the Cuban republic, and now everybody knows that would have been a calamity. The admistra- tion was able to defeat that, but it had to concede to the democratic majority in the senate and a few republicans an agreement that the Cubans should be allowed to form a government of their own. No one believes now that they will succeed, or that it is a wise policy for them, but the administration will live up to its obligations. Gen. Weaver referred all through his speech to his own record in the war of the rebellion. What was he fighting for? He was fighting tocompel the south to submit to his ideas*of right. The south claimed that it had a right to regulate Us own domestic institutions, and even men like Horace Greeley and Wendell Phillips conceded the claim, while men like Horatio Seymour, Vallandingham, Stephen A. Douglass, etc., urged it. But Gen. Weaver was right, and he fought nobly for the cause. It is unfortunate that in his old age he should repudiate the principles of his youth, and having participated in one war which established forever that barbarism has no right to do as it pleases and call it self government, should now align himself with the croakers against another war, which is no less a war for humanity and civilization. It is a sorry spectacle to see an old man, whose record in youth wtxs one of confidence in the integrity and destiny of American institutions, going about the country trying to persuade the people, on misquoted authorities and misleading statements of fact, that the liberty of the future is not safe under the flag of the United States. This was what his audience was thinking while he talked, for applause greeted him only a few times and then feebly, although his appeals were shrewd and well calculated to win it. Gen. Weaver was talking against his own honorable record as a young man, he was talking against the history of his own country, he was talking against the confidence the American people have in" the destiny of this republic, he was talking against the purpose of the Almighty as revealed in the progress of the world, for if anything is certain it is certain that liberty is going to penetrate the dark corners of the earth, and for the purposes of the present liberty and the American flag are identical terms. IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. bey our authority, and although we ave since many titties acquired new .ogeegeions it has been decided in every nstapoe that the inhabitants must submit tp PUP laws. 0en, Weaver mJBstateaject pf the law Weaver's iWrd pptat was the of t£e gQye,wie4» in the 4eo- pf JftflependeBCB, ajuj here 848 'ift fiJ*?e»Jpi bs * " } *1 ^ ',. j jii,* -f ' / r "'^J J^j * 5t t *•, ,' " *" s ft t ('j^'T* ^ f T *' *, ^J i'"* 4 1^1 Mason City gets put of a $45,000 railway tax. The Northwestern has refused to accept it, Mason City wants a $75,000 cpurt heuse, The Clear Lake end of the county thinks that is rather steep. Charley Grimm at Clear Lake has recently received the most expensive gun he has ever shouldered, It is an L. C. Smith hammerless shot gun and was presented to him by the Smith people. Kmnjetsburg Repprter: Fred, Wegener pf Fairfleld, tpwn.sblp and C. 0. Chubb of Algona went tp Chamberlain, S, P., .Monday tp ship home a bunch of OftWe What they purchased when were put Garner landlord, F. L. McCotnb. Frank ban prospered since be went to Algona and has one of the most complete laundry outfits in the state. Machinery all new and plenty of business to keep him out of mischief. Frank sent his respects to all of hie old Garner friends. L. H. Mayne says: Cousins is a splendid talker and at times given to flights of oratory, but when It comes to making a plausible and convincing argument he is not in it with J. P. Dolliver. The latter has the faculty of removing the sting from his remarks, thus making for them a lodgment in the minds of his auditors, especially those who are yet in doubt on political questions. QARNEE IS BEATEN. The Supreme- court Decides That the Hancock Court House Cannot be Moved to Garner Without a Vote. Garner has a $30,000court house built that it cannot use. The supreme court holds that the county records cannot be moved from Concord without a vote of the county. JURY POR NOVEMBER TERM. Court Setd Nov. 0, Judge Qutirton Presiding—The Jury Is Selected. Court meets Nov. 6, Judge Quarton on the bench. The petlit jury is as follows: Gus Blake, Chas. Brewster, A. P. Nelson, Frank Sluder, A. E. Giddings, Wesley; W. F. Carlisle, John Munch, Bobt. Finnell, Whittemore; M. L. Maylier, Arthur Paine, Lou Bush, A. D. Bradley, D. S. Ford, H. H. Hudson, W. J. Crammond, C. B. Albright, Algona; Geo. Butterfield, John Hill, Swea City; Jas. Dngnnn, Ledyard; Peter Figt, Lu Verne; John Wetsbrod, Fenton; M. Isaacs, German- la; Jens Nelson, Bancroft; Frank Beehl- mair, D. A. Baker, Hobart; Lark Reynolds, Armstrong; Will Starks, Sherman; Nick Engert. St. Joe; C. H. Hinkey, Cor with; Geo. Stone, Burt. A FOOT OUT OPF. .An Accident on the New Burt Line Already—Brnkeman Loses a Foot. • A Northwestern brakeman, W. A. Haswell, tried to get on the cow catcher of the switch engine at Burt Monday morning and slipped. The engine cut off half of one foot. Dr. Peters fixed him up and he was taken toEa.gle Grove on a special. Dr. Morse was taken on at Algona and with Dr. Peters' assistance amputated the foot, at the Grove, as Dr. Will was in the country. THE MONTH'S MAQAZINE8, It was current newspaper report a few months ago that Mark Twain was writing an autobiography, and that it would not be published for a hundred years. This idea, if it ever existed in the mind of the author, has been given up; but he did some work on an autobiography, and one chapter from it, entitled " My Debut as a Literary Person," has been secured by the publishers of The Century, and will appear in the November number. City Council's Doings. ALGONA, Oct. 14.—City council met pursuant to adjournment at the city hall, Mayor Sayers In the chair. Members present, Warren, Vesper, Morse, McMahon, Paine, Chapin and Samson; absent, Stebbins. Minutes of the previous meeting read and approved. Be it resolved by the city council of the city of Algona, Iowa: That the walk on the west side of Moore street between Call and North streets be condemned, and the owner or owners of the property abutting said walk be notified to rebuild the same within five days from notice, failing in which the street commissioner is hereby authorized and ordered to rebuild said walk and charge the cost to the abutting property owners as provided by law. Moved and seconded that the resolution as read be adopted. Ayes: Warren, Vesper, Morse, McMahon, Paine, Chapin and Samson. Nays: None. Carried. Moved and seconded that the rules requiring ordinances of a general or permanent nature to be read on three different days be dispensed with, nnd Ordinance No s 27, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1 of chapter No. 6 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Algona, Iowa, be placed on its final passage. Ayes: Warren, Vesper, Morse, McMahon, Paine, Chapin and Samson. Nays: None. Carried. Moved and seconded that Ordinance No. 27 as read be adopted. 'Ayes: Warren, Vesper, Morse, MoMahon, Paine, Chapin and Samson. Nays: None. Carried. Moved and seconded to adjourn. Carried. J. L. DONAHOO, City Clerk. Hollowny Goes to Europe, Bancroft Register: Mr. Holloway received a letter this week from Mr. Boynton, his partner, announcing his departure for England to complete arrangements for exhibiting the white wonders. The people of Bancroft who saw the white beauties trained for their act have no conception of the popularity of the Attraction in the east where they are now performing. The fame of the horses has preceded them to England, and Mr. Holloway on Tuesday received a letter from a member of the English nobility requesting a private performance of the animals when they reach London, which will be some time next month. Mr. Holloway is settling up his affairs here as rapidly as possible preparatory to his ALLISON ON THE TRUSTS. Iowa's Senior Senator Speaks on the Vexations Problem. departure fpr England the first of next month. They will also tour the continent, and there can be no question but our rotund townsman has the key to a fortune in King and Queen, in which every pne will rejoice with him. DON'T be led astray and made to believe, that there's semything just as good as Rocky Mountain Tea; there's Miller. Thinks that Now They Are Here, the Only Thing that Can Be Done Is to Regulate Them. Senator Allison in his speech at Marion said: I do not know how it is possible to raise any issues between political parties as respects trusts and monopolies in restraint of trade, or for control of prices or control of products, but this subject is now brought forward as though it was an entirely newquestion, as if one party favored monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, or to control prices or products, whilst the other was opposed to such monopolies and combinations, when in fact all parties are now opposed, and have so been opposed in the past. This question has been debated over and over again in the two houses of congress, the debate beginnnig as far back as 1886, when it was attempted to regulate trade and commerce among the states by imposing just restraints upon railway transportation companies and water transportation companies acting in conjunction with railroads. It had before that time been thoroughly established that it was in the power of the states to regulate the transportation of commodities within the several states, but that this regulation could not extend to commerce among the several stales, and that this could only be regulated by act of congress. This debate resulted in the passage of the law known as the interstate commerce act In 1887. Following this legislation, In 1888, the republican party, in its platform of that year, approved this legislation, and declared In addition its opposition to all combinations of capital organized in trusts or otherwise to control arbitrarily the traffic among citizens, and recommended to congress such legislation as would prevent the execution of these schemes. The democrat/to platform in 1888 was silent on this subject. In pursuance of this recommendation in the republican platform, the interstate commerce act was amended and strengthened by a law, approved March 2, 1889. The purpose of these two laws was to prevent unjust discrimination against one class of shippers Sn favor of another class, and to prohibit, with severe penalties, all rebates, unjust discriminations and other devices intending to unjustly discriminate between shippers; in short, to prevent unjust burdens and unfair discriminations between states, as respects the distribution of commodities. In view of the promises made by the republican platform in 1888 the question of dealing with trusts and combinations citrne up early in the session beginning in December, 1889, the republicans having the president and both houses of congress. The question was carefully considered by proper committees of both houses and a law was finally passed, on July 2, 1890, making illegal all trusts and combinations in restraint of trade or commerce among the several stales, and making' those violating its provision liable to severe penalties. In that discussion it was supposed that congress went as far as it could properly go in this direction, and this law has proved effective in many oases and especially against railroads which sought to 'combine with each other in making common rates for freight extending over a large area of the country, the supreme court declaring such combinations a violation of the law of 1890. The public opposition to trusts at that time was quite us severe as it is now, and was especially aimed at what was then known as the sugar trust, the Standard Oil trust, the binding twine trust, tho cordage trust and the cotton bagging trust—the last three having totally disappeared from public view. So the question of deal- ingdlrectly with these trusts was undertaken as far back as 1890, and the law of that year was passed by a republican congress, although there was no partisanship in the debate or in the votes. Sincere efforts were made by all parties to impose just restraints upon these combinations to control prices or lo control production 'and trade between the states. In 1892 the republicans re-affirmed their position as to combinations of capital, organized as trusts or otherwise to control arbitrarily the condition of trade, approved the legislation of 1890, and commended such amendments as might be necessary to make the law effective. The democratic party in the same year, for the first time, made a declaration against these trusts, demanding the rigid enforcement of the laws already made, and recommended such other legislation as experience might show to be necessary. The democratic party came into power on March 4, 1893, and continued in power until March 4, 1897. It had full control of congress during the first two years, and of the senate during the last two years, but in neither house of congress was any effort made to modify, amend, extend or improve the law of 1890, except the insertion of a single section in the tariff law of 1894, proposed by Senator Morgan of Alabama, applying the law to combinations in relation to imported goods, which was adopted without objection in either house,' The supreme court, in 1894, decided in a case brought before it, that, under the constitution, congress does not have the power to control or restrain the production of any article of commerce wjthjn a state, and that the power of congress to regulate does not attach until th.ere is a sale and pur- HMMIMllH ppuntry pye,r a mpnth fams— tennts waqted. chase, and until the article purchased starts on its journey from one state to another. So the question as it stands today is, how to deal with the monopolies and illegal combinations, and not whether they should be dealt with at all. The republican party has not hesitated to deal with this question in the past, as I have shown, and who can truthfully say that we shrink from dealing with it now? After all, it is a question under our dual form pf government how far congress pan go or tp what) extent tu ~ " i "'" «?S?t «??">!» the p9vw. the states have tried It. Republican and democratic states have made drag tic laws on the subject. Our own state in the twenty-third general aesemblt passed, practically by a unanimous vote, astringent law on this subject with severe penalties, going eVet to the extent of forfeiting the charters of those corporations engaged in violating the statute. I know of ho one in either party who Is not willing to amend these laws, and strengthen them where thev can be strengthened by amendments nor do I know of anyone who does not welcome every practical suggestion having in view the strenghtening of these laws, both state and national. In trying to find remedies to remov • the evils of trusts and combinations efforts have been made to find the cause of their origin. Mr. Bryan traces them in part to the scarcity of money arising from the failure to adopt free coinage and because of the appreciation of gold, which he seems to think has taken place, resulting in hard times and falling prices. He thinks that manufacturers, during the period of depression, sought trusts as a means of at least keeping above water. If that was the cause, of course the remedy would be the free coinage of silver, which would no doubt destroy them, and all legitimate business and industries besides. To attribute them to our protective system as reflected in the tariff, but if they had their own origin in this cause it wns very late in its development, for we have had a protective tariff most of the time since the foundation of the government, and all the time from 1861 to 1864, and even the tariff of that yewr had strong flavor of protection. Those who trace the trusts to this cause want free trade like Mr. White. Free trade would undoubtedly destroy some of them, but It would destroy our industrial system, fabricating more than twelve thousand million of dollars in value of products anually, at the same time, and thus create a much greater evil. But if the tariff Is the cause of these combinations, why is it that those that are the most complained, such as Standard oil, anthricite coul and others of greater or less note, are not affected by the tariff at all? If the tariff produces trusts why is it that, as a rule, the prices of the products manufactured under its protection are governed by competition? We have only recently had experience as to the effects of applying a tariff for revenue only, or free trade, to our industrial system, and it was then paralyzed and laborers were thrown out of employment, or if employed, working at greatly reduced wages. We see now these industries all employed and all the wage earners em- .ployed also, and their wages are being constantly increased. But if trusts con be traced to our tariff laws, why is it that in England, where they have absolutely free trade, trusts abound and have for many years? It is well known that for many years prior to the tariff law of 1890 there was a tinplate trust in Wales that absolutely controlled the price of the tinplate exported to this country, but our tariff policy broke up that trust and enables all consumers tinplate to purchase at a reduced price, and all was practically made by our own workmen, employed by our own capital in our own mills, and even now, with the large advance that has been made in the price of raw material from which tinplate is made, such as block tin and pig iron, the price of tinplate is less than it was before our tinplate industry was established. You destroy our tinplate industry by. making its importation free and you throw out of employment all of the men now engaged in it here, and all of the capital invested in the mills as well, and restore the trust in Wales. Others say that the discriminations made by railroad incorporations in the transportation of products, by giving the trusts benefits not enjoyed by others, have been a fruitful source of trusts, and that these discriminations must be prevented by law. But we have now on our statute books a most stringent law as respects interstate commerce, and similiar laws in all our states as respects local or state commerce. It may be said that these laws are not rigidly enforced, but if those we have are not, is it likely that more stringent laws will be enforced because of their stringency? But that is a remedy which may be applied without involving the discussion of constitutional questions. The states have complete power over commerce within the state, and congress has the full power of regulation as respects commerce among- the states, and if the laws already on the statute books are not sufficiently stringent or punitive, congress and the state can make them so by amendments to existing laws. In view of public opinion so universally expressed, covering- all phases of this question, and in view of ihe fact that congress and the legislatures have already considered the subject and acted upon it as best they could without reference to party,'it is strange that the democratic party tries now to make party capital of it. Its insincerity in this effort is apparent to the most casual observer, and the public is not likely to be misled by this " I am holier than thou" attitude. This is an important question in the evolution of our economic life and deserves to be treated as such, inviting and requiring the highest ability and and the best purposes of all parties and of all students for its solution, and in the end, if the greatest eood is to be obtained, all of these must "be invoked. Congress will, and the legislatures of the several states will, with the aid of all these lights, through their proper committees and by means of the fullest debates, legislate in such a way as to minimize, if not wholly eradicate, the evils which are found in these combinations, now declared illegal, or which may hereafter be declared so. Bets on tho Straight Ticket. Wesley News: Prod Corey bets his bottom dollar that the republican ticket will be voted, straight this fall. One cannot help but notice, either, what a ie came •• I • "--- — — J W«.V*4\JJ. large smile he has worn since » ^ nuiv home from Algona the other day, but the secret has leaked put. While there he called at Durdall's store and got to arguing politics—which is somewhat out of Fred's line—and finally a bet was made by Fred pf $110 against ft $60 evercpat that the ticket would be elected straight and, as he has a sure thing, cannot help expressing hie feelings whenever he J-hinks of hpw cheap fee gpt; that wt, which is something abpye tbg average, f

Get full access with a Free Trial

Start Free Trial

What members have found on this page