Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-02-06
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1866.

r. a. -. YRIDLEY AND HIS LAWYERS.
Rice, Hollinshead Z Becker, the Attorneys Of
Mr.. Fridley, seek to justify the conduct Of their
client in q Communication which they published
in, the Democrat of Saaarday evening. They as
sert that Mr.. Fridey paid the last payment to the
Winnebagoes in May 1853. and that before vouch-
ers could be prepared, the new administration
commenced suit sgsisst him. Believing that.
this was done to injure him, he put himself on
the defensive, &c. They state also, that the
vouchers of MIR. Fridley were withheld, leaving
it TO be inferred that these were the only youeh-
ers, when the law makes it necessary that there
shall be triplicate SET In reply to this, the
Pioneer of yesterday morning says: 1 afT
We do not recollect any other instance in
which lawyers, enjoying respectable position as
men Of ability, have presumed to so exorbitant
length upon the supposed ignorance and credulity
of the public, as have Messrs. RICE, H0LLINs-
HEAD 4 BECKER in the paragraphs above quoted.
They leave for inference, what they have not the
hardhood to assert, that Mr.. Fridley, as agent,
secured only single set Of vouchers for his dis
bursements, and that it was necessary this single
set should be retained in his possession, for his
own safety in defence of the suit with which he
was threatenedby the general government. Where
as, it was known to these Attorneys that, at the
least, trplicate sets of vouchers were always re-
quired by the government to be taken; one set
for transmission to the Indian Department at
Washington; a second, for deposit with the Su-
perintendent of Indian Affairs and the third, for
retention by the Agent, for his own protection.
1t was known to these Attorneys that their client,
Mr.. Fridley, had therefore procured these several
sets of vouchers, required by his instructions;
and if in this single instance he neglected to fur
nish himself with these several evidences of dis
h,vh A. e.
is satisfactory proof in our mind, and would be
to the minds of any court and jury, of premed-
itated intention on the part of Mr.. Fridley to
swindle the government. sa
On the other hand, if Mr.. Fridley did procure
these tripcate set of vouchers, Messrs. Rice, Hol
linshead & Becker, will not so far belle their own
intelligence and degrade their reputation, as to
say they advised him to retain this triple proof to
be used in court for his defence; when they know,
that Mr.. Fridley, and every other man of common
sense knows, that one receipt for the payment of
money, is as good and as conclusive, to establish
that fact in court and out Of court, as one thou
sand receipts would be. If such was their advice,
and if that advice was taken by Mr.. Fridley, ii
could only have been given and taken for signal
purpose, viz: To furnish their client, MIR. Fridley
with technical excuse for retaining in his own
hands, for speculative or other private purposes
large amount of money, of which the govern.
ment was entitled to the possession.
Weremark ag hin, that it is very singular to US
that if Mr.. Fridley has done nothing but what is
right, why should the Sec of the United States
Treasury publish him as a defaulter to the Gov.
eminent to large amount By such publications
without cause, the characters of innocent mer
would be ruined, and if an officer in the Genera
Government can thus, without provocation, libel 9
subordinate, it is time the people know it. W.
gave publicity to the matter solely on the strength
of the notice of the Secretary, and we still be-
| lieve that he did not make that notice without
sufficient cause. If Mr.. Fridley can clear himself
of the charge, well and good; We should be glat
to have him, for think he has enough else to an
for without this, but it is time toe press ant
every good man should expose those who are
daily adding to their Golfers by stealing from tn
General Government, and anything that ever
squints that way, is deserving thorough inves
| tigation.