Grand Rapids Herald-Review Newspaper, October 29, 1904, Page 5

been the the dex The | | cnc ‘HON. liev. if eac. w wat why Ti to ‘The HeraldeReviews JOHN LIND In an Able Manner Exposes Fal- lacy of Republican Claims. h Credit. Th hind | to un and ¢ Before a large audience in St. Paul for with T y Whe * obs. “es it ru, Political career will end. Met. 17, Hon. John Lind discussed the state issues laying bare the record of the republican candidate for governor. He spoke as follows: I come before you tonight not to ask votes, as on former oc- your R casions, but to discuss according to aj: my best light and judgment our mu- Op ‘ual duties and obligations as citizens his 9f the great nation and of our beloved On the third of March next my I will never again seek or accept public office. I state. It im have no political ambition ungrati- . fied—no desire except as a citizen to en. 2id and assist my fellows in further- rai ins the ae is Ce ffec e of good government. Men differ in their views of life, of creligion and of society. They differ in business methods. They differ in their views as to the sphere and func- tions of the national government. Out of these differences have grown politi- cal parties. Nationally the American people are arrayed in two great op- posing parties. These parties differ and differ vitally, on the questions of national taxation and expenditures, fi the attitude that we should assume the toward other peoples with whom we the yiome in contact, and many others in som hich I will not stop to discuss to- to rule St But I venture to say that as fcal ar 204 © izens of Minnesota we do not 4 aiffer to the necessity for the due ‘tne and orderly administration of the ‘the, laws of our state. We do not differ and 107 the proposition that all public bur- { any ti 208 should be fairly distributed; that week | money collected by taxation should i | pe 2 honestly and wisely expended for { to tha:-vied. } week, spell, his Me purposes for which the tax was ‘That our public property and ur school fund should be guarded; slat life and liberty should be pro- -cted and equal rights afforded to all sl@nder the law. I say broadly, that Then all questions pertaining to state \ Tobacc2d local government our people are -greed in aim, though individuals Yondit'{.y differ as to methods and detail. »teady;ood government, honest administra. 1e nelon by clean men is what we all de- deman!re at heart, end then plainer and no good citizen aould permit party zeal or party Oft-ide to silence this patriotic impulse. Ne WELFARE OF THE STATE. ing worsfhe legitimate end.of party organi- lizes-ion is the welfare of the state. fe feelsen citizens, actuated by common ttle wows and common convictions, form he effeil maintain party organization to * so-called ‘ect their purpose for the public good, their action is not only laudable, but under our form of government it ls absolutely necessary to accomplish results. In organization there is pow- er—in power there is danger if de- voted to selfish or personal ends in- stead of the public good. In the con- duct of any organization, especially if its membership is large, manipula- tion by a few unscrupulous men is comparatively easy. By fraud, sharp practice and corruption the will of the few is substituted for that of the many. The decree of the manipula- tors is put forth as the judgment of the whole body. This is what has happened to the great Republican party in this state. It was attempted in Wisconsin, but will fail, and I trust that it will here. Never before in the history of the state have a quarter of a million people—a whole congres- sional district—been denied a voice in party council. It may be urged that this is no concern of ours. From a party stand- point it is not. But from the stand- point of our common citizenship it is. The Republican party of this state is numerically strong enough to elect every state officer and control every department of government. When it selects fit men for the various offices we have no grievance and make no complaint. But the cause of good government and the honor of the state are in our keeping as well as in theirs. When through fraud and sharp prac- tice the Republicans have been pre- vented from giving us nominees worthy of their party and fit for the positions for which they have been named, we have a right to complain. We have the right to appeal to them to repudiate the tichet which is not theirs by choice. We have the right to appeal to them to aid us in se- lecting men worthy the honor of the state. We concede freely that the great body of the Republican voters in this state is as patriotic and takes + as much pride in the good name and fame of the state as we do. If those voters had had a voice in the recent Republican convention, they have remained silent on important question before would jthe most j the people—the gross earnings tax? * Would they have dragged the supreme Reourt of this state into the filthy whirlpooi of partisan traffic? Would they have nominated for high office men notoriously unfit and unworthy? PRAISES JUDGE LOVELY. If the patriotism and the conscience of the Republican party in this state had had a voice in that convention svould the convention have taken back the nomination of Judge Lovely, a just and upright judge, and placed his and the other judicial positions at the dis- posal of the political hucksters in the party? Would the convention have nomi- mated Senator Young for attorney general. He who of all other men in ‘the state has opposed the increase of The Record of Ex-Auditor Dunn Shown up ina Truthful Light That Reflects no ‘A Complete Expose. the gross earnings tax on all oc- casions. He has pronounced the law unconstitutional in advance and would be in a sorry plight to defend its validity if it shall be adopted by the people at the polls. The nomination of Ray W. Jones, of Minneapolis, for the second high- est position in the state—that of lieu- tenant governor—shows the utter qaorel irresponsibility of that conven- tion. On the 8th day of January last a suit was brought against his company by the United States. On the same day a summons was served on him by William H. Grimshaw, the United States marshal, calling on his com- pany to answer the following charge. I quote from the complaint on file: HISTORY OF LUMBER TRESPASS. “That certain parties in the logging season of the years of 1900 and 1901, ‘with the consent and at the request of the above named defendant wrong- fully entered upon certain lands own- ed by and the property of the United States.’ “That ‘at the special instance and request of said defendant (said par- ties) did wrongfully, wilfully and un- lawfully fell, cut into logs and re- moved’ a large quantity of public tim- ber. “That said parties ‘delivered and caused to be delivered said logs to the above named defendant and said de- fendant took and appropriated said logs and caused the same to be re- moved to its mill at Frazee, in Bewk- er county, in said district of Minne- sota.’ “That said defendant knew said logs were the property of the United States and were unlawfully taken from the lands of the United States.” And that the value of the timber so taken was $115,863.25. ‘\ The case was tried at Fergus Falls on the lith day of May last before Judge Morris and a jury in the United States circuit court. The jury found the charge in the complaint true, but assessed the damages at only $18,- 138.01. Judgment was subsequently entered on this verdict and for some $1,300 costs. This is the record of Ray W. Jones in one transaction. It was _ public property and fresh in the minds of the people. I repeat, if the conven- tion had represented the patriotism and _ the conscience of the great Re- publican party of the state, would it have nominated this man for that high office? HOW CAN JONES BE EXCUSED? When this matter comes up in con- gress next winter, as it surely will in connection with appropriations to pre- vent timber stealing, and if in the meantime the Republicans elect him lieutenant governor, what can I say in their defense. Shall I say that he is representative of the Republican ideal in public life? If not, will the Pioneer Press or some Republican kindly inform me what excuse to give? His record in helping himself to state timber has been dealt with by the public examiner. Mr. Dunn, the candidate for gover- nor by the say so of the same con- vention, I know well. He possesses many good qualities and of those I have frequently expressed my appre- ciation. I bear him no ill will and shall not knowingly utter one word derogatory to his personal character. His official actions alone I shall dis- cuss and criticise, and of those only such as I have personal knowledge. His record in the management of the timber and timber trespasses on state lands has been fully examined and commented upon by the present Re- publican public examiner. In regard to the trespass cases I have no per- sonal knowledge. I shall only refer to one matter and to that because Mr. Dunn has made mention of my name in that connection in his public specehes. These are the facts, UP TO STATE AUDITOR. The state auditor has the sole man- agement of the state timber. He alone has authority undgr the law as land commissioner to settle in case of trespass upon state lands. (See sec- tion 38, page 3870, General Laws of 1895.) The law provides for a board of timber commissioners composed of the governor, auditor and treasurer. The only duties of this board is to pass upon the question whether any particular tract of timber should be sold, on the ground that it is liable to waste from fire, decay or other cause, and these are the only questions that came up before the timber board while I was a member of it. Mr. Dunn is reported to have said that his alleged settlement with Mr. Buckman was brought before and ap- proved by the timber board. In this he is in error. He was the secretary of that board. Any action taken by it is required to be in writing. If the facts are as he states let him pro- duce the record. The only knowledge that I have in regard to any trespass on the state timber by Mr. Buckman was com- municated to me by Mr. Dunn in Mr. Buckman’s presence. One morning (I cannot give the date) those two gentlemen called at my office, Mr. Buckman remarking that he had some business with Mr. Dunn and stepped into call on me and pay his respects. Mr. Dunn then stated that Mr. Buck- man’s men—that is his logging crew —had by mistake cut some timber on state land in a certain section; that} this money was made payable on Mr. Mr. Buckman had communicated the fact to Mr. Dunn as soon as he dis- covered it, and had now come in to adjust the matter without suit. Mr. Dunn asked me what I thought about the propriety of doing so. I answered that under the law this matter was wholly in his hands, and suggested that he confer with the attorney gen- eral. I added, however, that, on gen- eral principles, I always favored an amicable adjustment of differences rather than litigation, and that if a fair settlement could be made If thought it very desirable. That is the last and the only thing that I have heard of known about the Buckman timber trespass until the appearance of the public examiner’s report. DUNN TOO RECKLESS. Recklessness is the marked char- acteristic of Mr. Dunn's official con- duct, and this, in my judgment, un- fits him for the high office of gover- nor. In the pamphlet issued by his committee entitled “Hon, R. C. Dunn’s Record as State Auditor.” I find among numerous other claims put for- ward in behalf of his candidacy the following. I read from page 32: “The litigation over the swamp land grant of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company is well known to most citizens of the state, but it is not so well known that at the time Judge Lochren filed his decree affirm- ing the validity of the company’s grant that there was included in that de- cree a list of lands to which the court declared’ the company was rightfully entitled, and that included in that list was some 43,000 acres of state in- stitutions lands on which are located at least three very valuable iron mines. When the attention of Mr. Dunn was drawn to this fact the time for appealing the case had gone by, and the state was threatened with a loss which would have not been less than $5,000,000. But by the use of considerable diplomacy and firmness the Duluth & Iron Range railroad people were induced to consent to the decree being amended, so as to ex- clude all the state institutions lands, which Judge Lochren very promptly did when the proper application was made by the attorneys for the railroad company.” Let us examine the facts in regard to this claim: On Feb. 13, 1865, long before any grant of lands had been made to the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad com- pany, the legislature of the state of Minnesota granted 300,000 acres of swamp land for the support of the in- sane asylums, the institutions for the deaf, dumb and blind at Faribault and for the support of the state pris- on, and 375,000 acres for the support of the normal schools then and there- after to be established in the state. Under this grant by the legislature Mr. Dunn’s predecessors in office had selected lands from time to time, among which were the 43,000 acres referred to by Mr. Dunn, and which are located in St. Louis county and along the iron range. The selection of these lands was a matter of record in the office of the state auditor, and they were the property of the state in trust for those institutions as much as our school lands are the property of the state in trust for our schools. BIG SWAMP LAND GRANT. On March 9, 1876, the legislature of the state of Minnesota, desiring to procure the construction of a railroad from Duluth to some point on the iron range, granted to the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company from the swamp lands located in the counties of St. Louis, Lake and Cook counties ten sections to the mile of road built “ “to be selected within ten miles on each side of the road,’ and, if there should not be enough swamp lands unsold and unappropriated within each ten-mile section of the road as completed, then the company had ‘the privilege of locating the defic- iency an any of the swamp lands be- longing to or to accrue to the state, not otherwise disposed of, within the counties named.’” i This was the language of the act, and I quote it as construed by the supreme court of this state in 45 Min- nesota, on page 110. Under this grant the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad company built 94.8 miles of railway and became entitled to 606,720 acres of swamp land. Prior to 1897 the state had deeded to the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad com- pany 201,789.82 acres in part satis- faction of the grant. The company had also selected some 130,000 acres of swamp land, which had not been deeded by the state. This selection by the company included the same lands—the 43,000 acres which I have heretofore referred to and which had been previously selected by the state for the state institutions. STARTED TO BUST GRANT. This was the condition of affairs when Mr. Dunn started out to bust the Duluth & Iron Range railroad grant. In his report to the legislature that convened in January, 1897, Mr. Dunn urged in the strongest language that he be authorized to institute suits to procure the cancellation of the grant. The attorney general, in an official opinion which is on record, had al- ready advised that the grant was valid and could not be set aside. But Mr. Dunn took issue with him and closed with this appeal to the legislature: “I would most respectfully urge the state legislature to take such action as may lead to the settlement of the whole question of the validity of the swamp land grant to the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company by the court. * * * T trust this matter will receive early consideration at the hands of the state legislature.” In pursuance of this recommenda- tion and Mr. Dunn’s persistent agita- tion of this question in the newspa- pers, the legislature appropriated $10,- 000 to carry on the investigation and litigation in regard to the Duluth & Iron Range railroad grant. The leg- islature also appropriated $4,000 to enable the auditor to properly look after the state institution lands. All Dunn’s vouchers. The attorney gen- eral, who had already given his ad- verse opinion, did not feel justified in bringing the suits alone. Outside counsel were employed to assist in carrying on the litigation. Suits were brought by the state in the state courts, also by the railroad company in the federal courts. The several suits were finally removed to the Unit- ed States circuit court and all tried together before Judge Lochren. All the data for trying these cases were .furnished by Mr. Dunn. The lists of land, both those which had been deeded to the company and _ those which had been selected but not deeded, came from his office. He was one of the principal witnesses in the case. It was to all intents and pur- poses his suit. Through his negli- gence, however, the attention of the attorneys or of the court was not called to the fact that the list of some 130,000 acres of land selected by” the company, but not deeded by the state, contained 43,000 acres of land already selected for the state institutions and held by the state in trust for them. DECISION IS FILLED. On the 8th day of January, 1900, Judge Lochren filed his decision in which he held the grant valid, and de- cided that the company was entitled to the lands already deeded to it and also to all lands contained in the list } which it had selected. (This latter list, as I have already explained, con- tained the 43,000 acres belonging to the state institutions After con- sultation between the attorney genep- al, myself and the auditor, we came to the conclusion unanimously that it was inadvisable to contiuue the litiga- tion, the supreme court of the state, as well as the United States circuit court, having already sustained the validity of the grant. (See state audi- tor’s report for the year 1900, page 25). Under this decision, while the rail- road company was entitled to select enough more swamp lands to fill this grant, it was bound to make such se- lections in a reasonable time under the decision of our supreme court. It had no right to any particular parcel until after it had selected the same. The state, under the earlier grant for the state institutions, had a first right to select for these institutions, as the list of swamp lands came in after the public surveys had been made, and this first right in the state to select was only limited by the rule that the state was required to leave enough lands so that the railroad company could fill its grant. After this decision by Judge Lochren, and I think largely upon my personal suggestion, some additional lands were selected by the state auditor for the state institutions in the Iron Range district. It was my aim and effort to get this Duluth & Iron Range land grant closed. The correspondence on file in the governor's office shows my ef- forts in that behalf, and finally, on the 26th day of December, 1900, almost my last official act, I prepared the form of a deed. The description of the land was supplied by the auditor conveying to the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company the balance of the acreage required to fill its grant. This deed is on record in the st: audi- tor’s office. The deed was delivered to the railroad company, but as I after- wards learned it refused to accept it. The company wanted to keep the mat- ter open so that when new lists of land came, it would be in position to select such as were likely to contain ore, as it had done theretofore. DUNN’S ERROR DISCOVERED. About this time Mr. Dunn’s error in permitting the 43,000 acres of stiite institution land to be included in the judgment in favor of the railroad company was discovered. Those lands contained mineral of probably greater value than stated by Mr. Dunn. Application was made by Mr. Dunn and by the attorney general to the railroad company to release these lands from Judge Lochren’s decree and reinstate the title to them in the state. I called on Mr. Kellogg in re- gard to the matter long after I had retired from office. Mr. Kellogg was counsel for the railroad company. He indicated to me that on account of Mr. Dunn’s oversight he would be willing to recommend to the company to release the lands. He made the same statement to Judge Douglas, then attorney general, and presum- ably, to Mr. Dunn. Subsequently Mr. Dunn advertised certain timber on some of these lands claimed by the company for sale at Duluth. The company had its repre- sentative at the sale and objected. This angered Mr. Dunn, as I am in- formed, and he proceeded to pay his respects to the officers and counsel of the railroad before the assembled pub- lic at the sale in language more char- acteristic than chaste. The proposition to release the land was promptly withdrawn by the of- ficers of the company and their attor- neys. This compelled the attorney general, Judge Douglas, to bring an action in the United States circuit court before Judge Lochren to have Mr. Dunn’s error rectified. This ac- tion was brought on May 6, 1901. The excuse set out by Mr. Douglas in his complaint for the amendment of the judgment is: “That is was necessary for counsel to procure and rely upon the services of others in selecting and identifying the description of lands proper to be embraced within or affected by said decree; that said list was prepared by clerical assistance and confidently re- lied on as containing no descriptions of land which had been selected by the state.” The railroad campany answered and denied that there was any mistake and stated: “That a copy of said decree with the list of lands annexed thereto was served upon the counsel for the state of Minnesota at least one month be- fore the entry of the decree in such cause,” And they further allege on informa- ton and belief: “That the said list of lands, with a copy of said decree, was by the coun- sel for the state of Minnesota, in said original causes delivered to the land commissioner of the state of Minne- sota and was examined by the land commissioner, or his assistants in his office in the state of Minnesota, and consented to, and that no objection was made to the said descriptions of lands on account of any pretended claim of the state of Minnesota by reason of the said pretended grants to said institutions.” DUNN MAKES APOLOGY. This undoubtedly placed Mr. Dunn in a very embarrassing position to have this important question come to trial in the circuit court of the United States on account of his errors or error of his _ office. It is presumed that he did not relish the ventilation of this matter. He now became more docile and applied to the railroad company for a com- promise. This was finally agreed up- on, and its terms were embraced in a decree of Judge Lochren, from which I will read the material portions. It bears date Feb. 10, 1902, and can be seen in the circuit court at St. Paul and a copy in the state auditor’s of- fice. As a part of this compromise, however, Mr. Dunn had to consent to an abject apology to the officers and counsel of the railroad company and take back over his signature all the things that he had said derogatory of and concerning them. Of these mat- ters I have no personal knowledge, but the statement will not be denied by either Mr. Dunn, Judge Douglas or Mr. Kellogg. Now let us look at the compromise as set out in the decree I quote: United States Circuit Court—State of Minnesota, Complainant, vs. Duluth & Iron Range Railroad Company, et al., Defendants. Decree. Jan- uary Term, 1902. 1. This cause came on to be heard upon the bill of complaint, the answer thereto, and the stipulations of the parties, and the court having duly considered the matters, and the par- ties in open court consenting there- to, it is Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the lands described in schedule A, hereto attached, situated in the coun- ties of St. Louis, Lake and Cook, in the state of Minnesota, be and the same are hereby excepted from the effect of the original decree, made by the court, bearing date the 8th day of January, A. D. 1900, referred to in said complaint, wherein said lands were decreed to be the property of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company, and that the same be and hereby are decreed to be the property of the state of Minnesota, its grantees and assigns, clear from any claim of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company, the said Walter F. Cobb, or either their grantees or assigns. Note: Schedule A contains a de- scription of the forty-three thousand acres. It is further decreed that the Du- luth & Iron Range Railroad company shall not have a right to select any of the swamp lands in said counties to fill its grant, which have heretofore been duly selected by the state auditor and commissioner of the land office of Minnesota to fill the grant or appropriation to certain state in- stitutions provided for by an act of the legislature entitled “An act to appropriate swamp lands to certain educational and charitable institutions therein named, and for the purpose of erecting a state prison,” approved Feb. 13, 1865, and amended by that certain act of the legislature of said state entitled ‘“‘An act to amend cha ter 5 of the General Laws of 1865 approved March 9, 1875, but it is further decreed that the state of Min- nesota and the officers of said state shall not, until the expiration of the time for the selection of lands to fill the grant of the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company, make any further selections of lands to fill the said grant or appropriation to the state in- stitutions from the swamp lands situ- ated in the said counties of St. Louis, Lake and Cook, and it is hereby de- creed that the Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company has the _ prior right of selection in said counties to fill its said grant, but that the said Duluth & Iron Range Railroad com- pany shall proceed with reasonable promptness to fill its grant, using due diligence in inspecting lands to fill the same, and it shall have until six months after all the swamp lands in the unsurveyed townships in the three counties aforesaid are surveyed and patented to the state of Minnesota by the United States government to select lands to fill its said grant. That should the Duluth & Iron Range Rail- road company fail within the time provided to select lands within said counties to fill its grant, then the auditor and land commissioner of the state of Minnesota shall have the right to forthwith select the lands in said counties for the said Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company and fill said grant. 4, It is further adjudged and de- creed that a certain pretended deed of land heretofore made on Dec. 26, 1900, by the governor and state audi- tor and land commissioner of the state of Minnesota to the said Duluth & Iron Range Railroad company to fill the grant to said company, be, and the same is, together with the said record thereof in the office of the said land commissioner, hereby adjudged to be null and void and of no effect, and made without due authority of law and contrary to the decree and judgment of this court. (Signed) —-William Lochren, Judge. STATE HAS SECOND PICK. By the terms of this settlement as confirmed in the decree it will be seen that not only is the right of the state to select a single acre of iron land in those counties postponed until the railroad company (the Standard Oil company) has had the “first pick,’ but the settlement of the land grant by the deed bearing my signature is set aside and the right of the com- pany to select lands continued until the last acre of swamp land in those counties has been surveyed and pat- ented to the state. There is probably a surplus of up- wards of 150,000 acres of swamp land in those three counties above what is required to fill the railroad grant whuch must be held by the state in- definitely for exploration by the com- pany. There are still over 100,000) acres to be surveyed by the government. When those surveys will be made no one can predict. How much longer it will take to secure a patent from the government for the last acre, no man DEFECTIVE PAGE living can estimate. I think few if any in this vast audience will live to see it done. New deposits of iron are found in this region almost every month and usually on swamp lands, but hereaf- ter they are not for the state. The enormous loss to the normal schools and to the other state institutions by this transaction cannot be estimated: It may be $5,000,000, it may be $50,- 000,000.» Is my charge of recklessness estab- lished? I might add here that I was never informed about the bringing of this last suit. I had no knowledge that my deed had been set aside or such a settlement made until I read it in the court records. Now a word about our convention and the ticket that we present to the voters of the state. The Democrats of Minnesota met in state convention more than a thou- sand strong. Every section and every district represented. None came on railroad passes, nor did any of them earry contests in their pockets. They came together to exercise their best judgment in selecting good and fit men for the various offices, and well they did their duty. NON-PARTISAN BENCH. The most important action taken by that convention—a step that ought to appeal to every good citizen—was its stand for an independent, non- partisan judiciary. For the supreme court we nominated two Republicans, Judge Brown, whose integrity or abil- ity has never been questioned; Judge Lovely, who was cast out of the Re- publican convention after he had been nominated—not because he was not an able and upright judge—but be- cause his place was needed at the bar- gain counter. The two Democrats we named are men of the highest stand- ing, personally and professionally. No jurist in the state is better known or more highly regarded than Judge Otis. Mr. Hall, of Red Wing, our other candidate, it is my please to know more intimately than the others. We were colleagues in congress for two years. I learned to love and ad- mire him for his ability, his integrity and his independence. Mr. McDermott, our candidate for attorney general, is a man of char- acter and standing, personally and professionally. Mr. Winston, our candidate for lieu- tenant governor, is a man of sterling integrity, ripe experience and fearless courage in combatting political rot- tenness. As foreman of the grand jury in Hennepin county he made a record in the cause of good government. John A. Johnson, our candidate for governor, I have known since child- hood. He was born in St. Peter where he now resides. His life is open book—every page of his record is an inspiration to duty. At eleven years of age he became the sole support of a poverty-stricken mother and several younger children. He found a place in a grocery store at $3 ner week, and for three years—156 times—his mothed drew that pittance for the support of hi If and little ones. He then obtained a better position in a drug store, where he continued for nine years, devoting his earnings to the support of the family and the education of his sisters and brothers. The brother and one sister are still living and owe their education as well as their support to John, who is to them a father rather than the elder brother. By indomitable energy and persistent work he also obtained an education for himself. Recognizing his ability as well as his worth some of his friends bought the St. Peter Herald for him. In time he paid for it and has continued to own and edit it to the present time. His standing in his profession is evidenced by his election to the presi- dency of the Minnesota Editorial as- sociation. In 1898 he was elected to the state senate over a strong and popular op- ponent, and this notwithstanding the fact that the district is overwhelming- ly Republican. In the senate he ren- dered the state and his district efficient service and won the confidence and re- spect of his colleagues. Our other nominees are each and all men of ability and character. They are the peers of their competitors on the Republican ticket and have a bet- ter title to have their names on the state ballot. They were nominated by the people. If elected they will serve the people and all the people. COMMITTED TO REFORMS. Aside from the excellent ticket which we present to the voters of the state, the Democrats of Minnesota stand committed to certain reforms which we shall urge upon the people, in season and out of season, until they are adopte® Justice to the people of the state demands that the pending amendment to increase the gross earnings tax on railroad property from 3 to 4 per cent should be adopted. To the support of this proposition we stand pledged by our platform. If the people adopt the law and elect our candidate for attor- ney general it will be enforced. Our tax laws are antiquated, cum- bersome and in many respects unjust. We favor an amendment or revision. We demand and shall labor to se- cure the necessary legislation for the iinposition of a state tax on incomes. We are pledged to legislation which will impose the same burden of taxa- tion upon foreign corporations doing business in this state as the law now imposes on domestic corporations. The general government generously donated to the state for internal im- provements upwards of 10,000,000 acres of swamp lands. Most of these the legislature has donated to railroad companies, but some ‘remain, and it is our aim to save these and devote their proceeds, or the equivalent, to the drainage, and reclamation of the vast areas of valuable lands in the state which are too poorly drained and too low for profitable cultivation. We acknowledge the service done to the state by those who have in- vested their money in the construction of our railroads and other public works. We cheerfully concede that they are entitled to a fair return on their investment, and we deny that they have either a moral or legel right to. tax the people by unreasonable transportation rates to earn dividends on fictitious values. We offer you candidates for railroad commissioners who will be guided by the principle that the railroads are the servants of the people and not their masters; that for services .rendered they are entitled to fair play, the same as an individual, and nm. more. Equal rights to all, special privi- leges to none. This is our maxim. This is our guide. With these aims and with a ticket made up of able, honest and clean men we confidently appeal to all good citizens of the state for support and co-operation. exeg BEORIONT % 4 3 % & 5 }