Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-02-12
dispose Of his evidence and statement by the
following embellishments:
STATEMENT FROM A. D. MARTIN, FOREMAN OF THE
MINNESOTIAN OFFICE.

1
tion." Now, am ready to make affidavit that, to
the best of my kno,0lsdgs and belief no Committee
of one, two or three men, left any such instruc-
J tons with me. l do remember of Mr.. NEwsoN
, and gentleman calling one afternoon and asking
for Dr. FOSTER, but don't think they told me their
business. II they had told me that they wanted
| the lines erased, l should have referred them to
the Editor, (as would have had no right to have
made any alteration in copy furnished me,) and
when DR.. FOSTER came in, following that they had
told me,) should have informed him that they
wanted the lines erased, instead of simply telling
him that ''Mr NEwsoN and gentleman had called
| and wanted to see him." as did. It seems to me
that if they had told me that they wanted the lines
| erased, would undoubtedly have remembered it.
| As regards MIR. KEITH saying that a gentleman
called twice, and that promise was given that it
would be erased, simply say that never made
such promise to any one.
| A. D. MARTIN, Foreman.
The above rebuts one portion Of Mr.. Bates
evidence, viz: as to the first promise on the
first "call'' with Mr.. NEwsoN. Then, touch
ing the second "promise" at the next call"
when he saw "Dr. FOSTER" we offer the fol-
lowing statement from G. D. G1LF1LLAN, Esq,
the well-known Chairman of the Republican
State Committee at that time:
| STATEMENT OF C. D. GILFILLAN, ESQ.
To the Editors Of the Ainnssotian:
My attention has been called to the Card of Sem
ator BATES, published in the Pioneer d Democrat of
this morning, and while perusing it noticed mat
| tiers which came under my own observation.
1 was not present when Mr.. BATES, in company
with Mr. NEwsoN, called at the Ainnesotian Office,
and of course know nothing about what occurred
at that time; but was present when Senator
BATES called alone, and have distinct recollection
| of what then occurred.
| At this time, Senator BATES came into the Office
between or 10 clocki the evening, while no one
was present but DR.. FOSTER and myself. Mr..
BATES walked by US, and passed to the other side
| of the ROOM along where the type forms ofthe pa
per were, and asked eff that article had been set
up?" The Doctor replied, that 1T chad been and
| the printers had gone.'
judged from MIR. Bates manner, when he
come in, that he was anxious to see the Foreman,
in order to how the article set up, aud that
he only .rnLn 80 Doctor Ens-so ahnnt IL. because
the persons in charge of the printing Office were
not there. Upon being told ''thatthe printers had
gone for the night" Mr.. BATES walked rapidly out
of the room.
Mr. BATES says that he found the Doctor in mot
| very good humor." Mr.. Bates manner was far
from being cordial nor did Doctor FOSTER conde-
sceud to invite disclosure of his business.
Mr.. BATES did not say anything about any eau
Gus or meeting having been held of those who had
| signed the pledge, or that he was authorized by
any one to cause the same to be altered. For my
own part, did not know from any questions asked
by, nor directions given by, Mr.. BATES, what his
business was.
After Mr.. BATES went out, the Doctor and myself
conversed about what we supposed was the inten
ton of Mr.. Bates visit. The Doctor said that he
supposed that "the leaders of the Railroad Loan
party had come to the conclusion, that they had
made the pledge considerably too strong and
probably wanted now to back down a little; that
he supposed BATES wanted to get hold of it, and
alter it; that the Card would have to be published
as signed. unless they produced it with the atera-
tons made, and the pledge as altered eisu-a ny
by every one of the persons who signed the origi-
nal that he could not at the request of one of the
signers alter it, or consent to have the Card alter
ed, and then published as the Card of the Sixty"
&c. C. D. GILFILLAN.
ST.. PAUL, Feb. 10, 1859.
We should think the above would shave
slight tendency" to dispose of the Pioneer
and its "good" but mistaken witness, "for some
time to come" But, as this is somewhat Of
personal matter, perhaps the public will in
dulge us in making also statement over our
own signature:
STATEMENT OF DOCTOR FOSTER IN REPLY TO
| SENATOR BATES.
To the Public When Senator BATES saw me,
on the occasion referred to, it was after nine o.
clock in the evening. was sitting in the Minne-
sotian printing room, conversing with c. D. GIL
F1LLAN, ESQ.,, the Chairman of the Republican
State Committee. The printers were all gone
home; the forms of type for the next mornings
paper were locked up and lying on the imposing
stone ready for the press; and the foreman had
also gone home; and the lights all out except
one Mr.. BATES came into the room, and seemed
laboring under some excitement He walked to
the further end of the room away from US, as il
looking for something or somebody; and finally
inquired eff that paper had been set up as it was
written" Surprising him to allude to the Anti
tered something to himself. l remarked that
"there the forms were lying, locked up, ready for
the press, the printers and foreman were gone, and
the pressman was every moment expected down
stairs for them" He was evidently excited, and
went hastily out. said to Mr.. G1LF1LLAN that "it
was strange BATES had not explained better what
he wanted but that he was so excited and annoy.
ed in his feelings evidently, that he perhaps was
not aware clearly what he did say.' said 81 sup.
pose know what he wanted from what is rumored
secretly around about caucus of the leading Rail
road members and Railroad officials having been
held at the Fuller House. The leaders want to
change the document, so as to leave the door more
open for future taxation than its ending now does
that is by striking out the words to oppose a tar
at the adjourned or any other session of the Leg
islaturc-that the same idea of no future taxation
at any time, would be just as well presented with
out them to induce the people to vote for this
Loan; but with them out, it wouldn't tie up SC
closely, in words, some of the members who had
signed it only for buncombe and not in earnest
against taxation. said moreover, I "should not
if even Mr.. BATES had fully explained himself have
made an alteration of the document, without thu
same men who signed it, over their own signatures
requesting it to be done. The request of no Sc
cret, irresponsible caucus. nor any Committee ap
pointed by one, would justify me in tamperini
with the document or in changing tin theslghtest
without the entire body of the signers should in
similar formal manner, over their own signatures
demand it. No one man out of the Sixty had thu
right to alter the document without the other fifty
nine. understood that the signatures of tn,
more honest loan men could not have been obtain
ed without those words being to the document
but that now the effort was to leave door open t.
future taxation"
In aword, repeat, Mr.. BATES is mistaken il
thinking ae ever made the request of me that b,
mentions. THOMAS FOSTER