Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1876-10-12

eo"iuou "o oioSti ana GH4uestl0Hable.
II decided strictly according to law.
These reasons alone so far as I know
induced DR.. McDill to instruct his ar
torney to withdraw his notice of con-
test. My interview with Judge Cate
for that purpose was quite informal
and brief. | first handed him a writ
ten withdrawal OF the notice and then
Immediately handed him also a writton
retraction of the libelous and column
Gus charges in his answer, which he
signed without hesitation. IF any,
thing was said by me as to the reasons
of DR.. McDif for this course, they
were the trae reasons, as stated above.
did not then know, nor do | yet
know, what Indian votes had been
counted, or what Indians had voted,
or what number, or how that vote at
tected the election one way or the 9th
ef and had not then and have not vet
made any examination whatever into
the facts, of that election, beyond the
rejected township returns. of Wood
county, and of course could not have
expressed the opinion that 1.-THE reicc-
ton OF the Indian votes left me
(Judge Cate in a majority" for [
knew nothing whatever about it. and
had no information about the contest
except from the unsupported allega-
tons of the notice and answer I
may have stated to Judge Cate as I
am suTe [ have to others, in respect to
the Indian vote in this state generally.
that 1t was a question whether those
Indians who drew their annuities with
the tribe, were entitled to vote as citi-
zens, and that such drawing and re-
ceiying their annuities was strong pre-
sumptive evidence that they were still
tribal Indians, and it might be held
they would be estopped from exercis-
ing the elective franchise [ might
have said further that if this question
arose in this contest, based upon proof
that Indians who had voted, were in
the habit of receiving their annuities
with the tribe, democratic congress
would probably decide the vote illegal
and that if the right of DIR. McDiil to
his seat depended uyon such vote,
his claim weuld be rejected probably.
by House of Representatives polite
ally opposed to him, for such decis-
ion would be at least plausible SO
far as [ then knew, or yet know, the
right Of Dr. McDill did not depend
upon that question, the loose and
general and improved allegations of
Judge Gates answer, to the contrary
notwithstanding, and the statement
that | broadly admitted away all the
rights Of my client, without any
knowledge whatever Of the merits of
his case, or of the facts and proofs, is
not and could not be true [ dislike
exceedingly to be brought into person,
al question and especially SO uncere-
moniously and discourtcously, by the
surviving party to legal proceedings,
in which | acted professionally only,
for a client now deceased, and must be
permitted to protest against the right
of Judge Cate or any one else to rep
resent or mis-represent my legal opin-
ions, in the course of my professional
employment, especially after the con-
troversy is ended by the death of my
client and NJ practical, legal object or
result can be attained by it. If the
purpose of Judge Cate, is to make me
odlus to the friends of the late DIR.
McDill, or my pretended opinions ser
viceable to him, In a revival of the
controversy. he ought at least in his
representation to treat me with COM
mon professional respect.
[ do not wish you to publish this
letter unless for some reason, Of which
[ am not apprised, you deem it abso-
lutely necessary. In nearly forty
years of professional practice. this is
the first time my private relations to a
client have been the subject OF news
paper publication or comment, and in
this instance, it seems to be of no pos
sible public consequence, beyond its
exceptional method and purpose, and
whether true or false or based upon
misunderstanding merely, or prompted
by bad intention, this published state
ment of my opinion is strictly person