Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-08-06
The Hastings Currency Meeting Again.


1t will be recolected that about week or
two since, we published the proceedings Of a
Currency Meeting in Hastings; which was
followed by Card" from WM. G. LEDUc,
of that place, disproving some of the state
ments of the report of the proceedings. This
card" was not seen by the editor prior to
its publication, and therefore went in without
the comment which would otherwise have &C
companied it. A correspondent at Hastings
writes us as follows, respecting the whole mat
ter:
HASTINGS, July q, 1859.
DR.. Thomas Fostr-Dear iSr:-I had not seen
your paper of the 3d. cotaining the "card" of Mr..
time You will recollect that l handed in the pro-
ceedings Mr.. LeDuc refers to, for publication, and
afterwards spoke with you on the subject Mr..
LeDuc speaks of that publication as "partial and
unauthorized statement CT the action Of the meet
ing, and that is without the signature OF either
the Chairman or Secretary, and as ''msrepresent-
ing entirely the expression of opinion manifested
by majority of the citizens assembled" &c. Also,
the opposition was made by few Democratic Of
hce-holders, DC, is "untrue and preposterous.'-
Now, sir, every resolution published, passed the
meeting by large majorities, and the resolutions
which did not pass were left out.
the officers of the meeting, but a report of the
proceedings themselves, and as such, tits in every
particular correct. The same proceedings were
published in the Republican paper here, which
would not be likely to be the case if they
sentially incorrect. That those resolutions en-
body emphatically the opinions of the people Of
Hastings, is not disputed here. Mr.. LeDuc at
tended the meeting and made opposition to the
passage OF any resolutions rejecting on Governor
Sibley but the resolutions he opposed passed al
most unanimously! and he made no opposition to
any other resolutions.
Mr.. LeDuc states also in his "Card" that the
statement published was 6 snauggled'' into your
paper, and also that your anonymous correspond
ent' "has abused your courtesy as editors" &c.
am not aware that they were ''smuggled'' into
your paper, or that your courtesy has been abus.
taken heretofore, upon the Railroad Bond and Cur
rency Question, and approving that course, pre-
pared report of the proceedings for publication
snpposng it wo'd be acceptable to the Minnesotiar
for that purpose. In doing that l supposed the
courtesy" if any, was on my side, newspapers
generally are anxious to publish the reports o.
public meetings held to advance views which they
favor, and can always accept or refuse everything
sent to them for publication.
think, therefore, that in publishing Mr.. Lee
Dues Card lin which he asserts that the publish
ed statement was 'smuggttd' into your paper
aud that your courtesy as editor has been abused
WITHOUT comment on your part knowing the fact!
to be different, you have done me an injustice.
Our correspondent is correct in sayini
that the proceedings of the Hastings meeting
were not " smugglea" into the MINNEsoTIAN
We were glad to publish them, as we vii
any future proceedings giving expression t
the determination and indignation of the Pee
pie at the issue of an irresponsible and unre
deemable currency by connivance betwee
Democratic and Railroad officials!