Stevens County tribune. (Morris, Minn.) 1877-1880, 1878-10-31
DUAAEL'S LETTER PROVES BpOWN'S CON-
PuCITY
Oh! What an Investigation! |!
Dunnes, the Man who Appoint.
ed Brown to Office, Says:
Brown Deceived, Act.
ed i'm Bad Faith, and
WrOn2ed Wass!
FACTS I'm THE HERRLICAsE.

our readers TO give Mr.. Brown the benent
of any and all doubts In this matter; but
while we have no doubt but that some Of
the extracts may be very severe and posi-
bly, unjust, yet we must say that we are re-
luctantly forced to the conclusion that the
charges were not manufactured out of
whole cloth, although Mr.. Brown claims
they were, and we will give our reasons
for our doubts. Mr.. Brown says in his let
ter: Nov Mr.. Wass was not swindled by
any one In or around this office" Do the
facts of the case warrant such a wholesale
denial? We think not, and for the follow
ing reasons: All the facts in the Wass
case were laid before Hon. NJ 81. Dunnell,
and he, in an open letter to Hon. Jas. e.
Childs, dated Nov. 18th, 1876, in speaking
of the Wass case, says: Brown deceived
the man, but kept within the law in that
case. x X Wass has right of action
against Brown for the money. I
thought Brown had done aerons. and SO
said to the Department, and while l have
been acting in good faith, other men in the
delegation have been opposed to his re-
moyal." Under date Of Sept 1st, Dunnell
also wrote: II hardly think Mr.. Wass has
any reason to expect any result to the in
vestigation, which will benefit him, for
while there may have been bad faith, there
may not appear any violation of law" Mr..
Dunnell also goes On TO say: Land Off
GERS have no right to have any thing to do
about claim till it has been cancelled, and
then the first applicant has right to enter
it." Now, this letter from Congressman
Dunnell establishes the fact, that Wass
took Gustafson's- papers to Brown, and
these papers were forwarded to Washing
ton, but the lard was filed on Ey Brown,
This is the only conclusion left us, for the
following reasons: Mr. Dunnell says, "a
land officer has no right to have anything
10 do about claim" This shows that
Brown had something to do about it. and
leads US to infer he filed on it. He next
excuses Browns conduct by saying that
after the cancellation then the first appli
cant has right to enter it, This proves
that Brown did file on it. He also says,
Brown deceived the man." This proves
that Wass took the papers to Brown and
acted on Browns advice. Next, Mr Dun
nell says, "Wass has right of action
against Brown" and this proves that Wass
paid his land Office fees, and to clinch the
matter, Mr.. Dunnell says, "that he dun
nelD acted in good faith, but other men in
the delegation opposed Browns removal"
this proves that the man who knew all the
| facts in the case, tried to have Brown re-
moved, but was-at that timc-prevented
by some opposition. 1t may be well for
US TO say that the clause, II acted in good
faith, as used by Mr. Dunnell, was called
forth by an article in a paper accusing him
of shielding Brown and endeavoring to have
him retained. Now, to further prove that
Wass' claim was taken away from him by
A. A. Brown, and that we are right in this
matter, we clip the following, from the
| Minnesota Radical of Nov. 22d, 1876
speaking of the Wass affair, it says
Brown, instead of filing Wass' papers Oh
the land as soon as Gustafson's claim had
been relinquished, took advantage of hii
position as q land officer, Withheld Wass
fling papers and obtained the land fol
himself by using soldiers additional
homestead entry"
| Now, for the Herrli case. 1t ia claimed
by Mr.. Brown that he don't know anything
of this affair. Well, this is to say the leas
very singular, for this case was made the
subject of an official investigation by the
Land Office Department. The day for thii
investigation was August Goth, 1875, anc
it was called before Register Tyler, a
New Ulm. Now, it is singular Mr.. Brown
should have forgotten this case for he wa
subpenaed and his fees paid, but refused
to appear, but mark what followed: ''Al
attorney was put on the stand and-ver,
reluctantly testifed, "that he did no
know Ellis"-tha man whose filing wa
put on Herrli's land, ,-'he did not know
Z. A. BroWn'-the man to whom Eli
transferred the deed for the land ,-''bu
was employed by A. A. Brown" This il
face of the fact that A. A. Brown publish
/ ed statementsto the effect that he ha
no interest in the laEd! If he had no intel
est in the land, why did hea witness
! tLat case-cmploy counsel. Now let u
I see what was said of his interest In til
J land in question. The Waseca Radical, G
August 10Th, says: Brown have no ii
terest in the land in question? What
falshoodl Why no less than two montl
: ago, this same A. A. Brown offered to Sc
! the Herrli land to gentleman in til
: village" It is very queer, to say Ii
: least, that he would try to sell piece
t and in which he had no interest
+ Mr. Brown was not interested in this Herr
) property, would he be likely to offer 1t Il
+ sale? That he did SO, is the case, or eli
d the person making the assertion would n,
i go on and say: .'Will Mr.. Brown der
these statements we guess not The