Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-02-12
~ Advertisers should remember that
the Minnesotian has q Daily Circula.
ton Greater than any other Paper In
Saint Paul!!!
The Controversy about the Anti.Tax
Pledge OF the sixty.

Saint Paul!!!
The Controversy about the Auti-Tax
Pledge OF the Sixty.
The controversy between ourselves and the
Pioneer, relative to the words "At the ad-
journed or any other session of the Legisla-
ture," in the Anti-Tax Pledge of the Sixty
Loan members of the last Legislature seems
likely to be somewhat prolonged. We re-
capitulate
LIST. In the first place, the Pioneer led of
with most scandalous and vituperative arti-
Gle, in which "liar, torger, thief" were the
mildest phrases it applied to us for having, as
it alleged, forged these words at the end OF
the said document.
ID We replied in very brief terms, pro-
ducing the Original Autograph Manuscript
with the signatures of the "Sixty" to it, and
proved that those very words were part Of
the document; that consequently the editor
Of the MINNEsoT1AN had not forged" them
to it, as charged; and that the words liar,
sn-oe- thief were notjustly applied to US.
Sd. The Pioneer, taken all aback at this,
extended its observations in reply to over two
columns in length, Zone from an anonymous
correspondent, whom it now says was j. w.
Taylor, the Secretary of the Minnesota Pa
cific Railroad Company composed of special
pleading, in the vain attempt to get out of the
difficulty into which it had so rashly plunged.
1t admitted that the words in question " acere
not soritten" in the Manuscript by DR.. Fos-
TER, but aoere there when those Sixty men
gave it their signatures! But while making
this admission, it changed its first ground, and
tried to show that the forgery consisted in
the fact" that those words had been tex
pressy and formally" directed by the sign
ers to be erased, and that DR.. FOSTER had
been requested by Committee " to erase
them; and argued therefore, that retain
ing them in the pledge after this, was really a
practical forgery of them!
4th. In answer, we denied that the signers
had, In any public way, expressly and for
mally" disavowed those words, and denied
mttee or otnerwlso to erase Them" and
we demanded Of the Pions.sr the proof of its
new allegations.
9Th. Yesterday morning, it Produced its
proof, such as it is which it publishes, too,
with quite flourish, saying: cit strikes us
it will have slight tendency to dispose of the
good Doctor, decent direct change from " IL
ar, forger, theif,'l and of his denials or obser-
vations for some time to ceme:" Very COM
placent, truly: but let us see. The first wit
ness which the Pioneer brings forward is GEO.
II. KEITH, of Minneapolis, whose card is da-
ted at that place, Feb. 9, 1859. The follow
ing is the essential portion of what he says:
81 was one of the signers of that document, and
was present at full caucus Of the signers held at
the Fuller House the evening previous to its pub
lication, when the words IN question were unanl-
mously resolved to be stricken out, as they were
thought to be capable Of construction not intend
ed by the signers, and Committee was appointed
" visit the different printing offices and order the
correction to be made in accordance with the eau
Gus vote.z On seeing the Minnesotian of March
10th, sp Ike to one Of the Committee, asking him
why the correction had not been made in the Mn
,esotian. He replied, that he called twice at the
Minnesotian office, and they promised to make the
correction as ordered. GEO. H. KEITH"
This Committeeman who thus told him
that che had called tpice at the MINNEsoTIAN
Office and they promised to make the correc-
ton as ordered" was, we presume, Mr.. Sena-
tor E. N. BATES, the Pioneers other Witness
and who does not say that they promised "
at the MINNEsorIAN Office to make the cor
rections ordered" but shows to the contrary!
"a question of veracity between Mr.. KEITH
and Mr.. BATES we leave them to settle as they
best can.
But to the card of the Pioneers second
witness, Senator BATES, is as fol-
lows:
sThe facts above attested by Mr.. Keith, are true
of my knowledge. In addition thereto have to
state that was one of the Committee appointed
by the Caucus meeting of the Signers above refer.
red to, to procure the erasure OF the words lat
the adjourned or any other session of the Legisla-
ture" state distinctly, that called twice at the
Ninnesotian Office to desire the correction to be
made as ordered by the caucus. On the first &C.
casion when l called in company with MIR. New
son. the editors were not in and left instructions
with the foreman to erase the words IN question
In order to make sure of the correction, l called
a second time, and finding DIR. Foster, requested
him to make the change desired l found him in
would think about it, or something to that effect
Finally, on leaving, told him to make the correc
lions indicated, so as to make It conform to the
document as published in the Times and Pioneer
or not To nubfish at all. Furthermore, will take
the onnortunity to say that the sole design of the
docnnne-. IN question was to contradict the spe
Sinc charge of the NinnesOtian that the majority
of the Legislature intended at their next session
laws tow 20 sv,xA xInn
loan; and that the words in question were erased
because they seemed to some of the signers sus
teptible of an erroneous construction:
This is the Pioneers evidence to prove thai
the Sixty did formally and expressly" dis
avow these words, and that DR.. FOSTER was
requested to "erase them" from the docu
ment.
First, in regard to KEITH. He testiies tha
it was full caucus Of the signers that was
held at the Fuller House; but we know tha
he is mistaken and that quite large number
of them were not present and at anyrate
sohy were not the proceedings openly pub
lished, in formal" manner, so as to let the
public know that those words were "express
ly" disavowed. Or, was it the intention t.
"keep the promise to the ear and break it t.
the hope "?-The intention of the Loan mer
to have two strings to their bowl
1t is true that four days afterwards, taking
hold of the rumaor whispered around the cap
itol that such secret caucus had been held
we made publication to that effect, in tn
following words:
the original had been delivered into possession
with formal request, to publish it in the Ninnesc
tian, which we promised to do uebatins ct htero
tim, the members of the Legislature who voted 70
the S. 000 900, or PORTION OF THEM, met On cduea
at the Fuller House, and there expurgated the ms