Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1878-10-31
Reply to Washburn's Letter.
Little Fails, Oct. %, 1878.

Reply to Washburn's Letter. -
j.. r Little Fails, Oct. %, 1878.
Editor Of the Transcript: ....~.. .,
= For brazen>faced impudence and
unparalleled mendacity, give me
Washburn's letter published in your
issne Of the 24th inst. In it he throws
truth to tl,e winds, mounts fa!sehood,
and boldly rides ;hto the columns Of
the Transcrint to .vindicate himself
from what, at the time, he knew 10 be
most rascal1y transaction. AS to the
contract made between Smith & Mack
and Muncy and myself, he states alb
so!uteIy falsely, and he knows it. lie
says, ~"this contract" referring to the
Smith & Mack contract, "without my
consent being asked. but later coming
to my knowledge and being perfectly
satisfactory to me, they sublet to
Muncy s LAMBERT etc. b1-. Muney
was at Minneapolis when Smith &
Mack sub1et the contract to US, and
positively refused to have George A:
Perkins scalesthc logs on the bank,
and refused to accept the contract un-
less the Surveyor General, or one of
lis deputies, should scale the logs.
Smith told Washburn that he was
about to sublet his contract to Muncy
& Lambert, and that they would not
take it unless he, Washburn, would
consent to have the Surveyor General
or one of his deputies scale the logs on
the bank. He consented at once, and
we took the contract. Mr.. Smith
swore to the above statement in open
court in his suit with Washburn, and
we are prepared to substantiate the
same, and all other statements we
may hereafter make, with. af6davits
from parties of unimpeachable veraci>
ty. So much for the contract. WASH
burn states that we aid not object to
Perkins scaling our logs. We did OBJ
ject, and most strenuous|y too, because
of his patent dishonesty. Every party
cutting logs for Washburn that wins
ter, objected ; and one party drove
Perkins off, and would not ALLOW him
near his logs. Between Perkins, scal>:
ing and the boomage scaling there was
a difference of three hundred thousand
feet in our favor, and Washburn cody
pocketed the whole Of the difference.
Is it not clear as daylight why he In
sisted on having his logs scaled by his
plant tool and knave, Perkins? In
regard to the $500 in orders, which
Wasbburn says we disposed Of before
final settlement, Muncy besought him
in vain to pay them, stating what f.
nancial distress it would cause him>
self and me, if we failed to get our pay.
Although the final disposition of the
orders constituted, technically, sale,
they were disposed Of with Washburn's
full consent and advice. Washburn
advised Muncy to let the orders go at
so cts. on the dollar, and Mnncy did
so.
Washburn says that Smith & Mack
sued him twice for the difference be-
tween the bank and the boomage seal
ing, and that the verdict was in his
favor. That shows the power Of mon~
ey upon a jury, rather than the JUS
tice Of the verdict. Washburn states
in his letter that Muncy certainly
COulu DOt nave COuSlueECu llluQhGll lll>
used, because he entered into a con-
tract will, him, Oct. 8, 1874, to haul
logs in the same locality. Washburn
knows perfectly we'll that the contract
referred to was entered into with Nun
cy about eight weeks before Washburn
made an assignment, when everybody
supposed that Washburn was Bound.
He says he is satisfied that Muncy
& Lambert came to no n,isfortunes on
account of his dishonesty. Our loss,
directly and indirectly, resulting from
his dishonesty, was very large, for
farmers Of slender means to sustain,
from the effects of which we have not
recovered.
" T. T,AuprRT