Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-02-26
READING USsEALEp LETTERS.

mr.. Mans'tip Gives HIS Yersion of the
Postofice Natter.
To tn Editor Of the Globe.
Dr. Day, in half column article in yes
terday mornings GLOBE, has undertaken to
give the history of transaction that oc-
Cured Saturday evening, in whicha Mr..
Bronson, an employee of the postofice de-
partment, and myself are the principal actors.
l think DR.. Day has been deceived and led
unwlttlngly into making several statements
IN regard to my action in the case that are
wholly devoid of truth, and if left without
some notice would place me in an unpleas-
ant attitude before the community.
In the first place, it is true that
met Mr. Cronquist, the letter carrier,
on Inc corner of Third and Robert
as stated; that asked in gentlemanIy way
1or tne Two letters referred to- one addressed
10 tne GLOBE and the other to the Pioneer,
explaining at the time the nature of their
contents. Mr.. Cronquist satisfied me that
the regulations of the postoffice department
were such that he could not give them no.
but must take them to the postoffice, and
pleasantly invited me to accompany him. 1
did SO. did not ''follow him insisting that
he should deliver the letter to me-" [ did
not close my temper and enter the mailing
room IN towering passion but was in
vlted there by the carrier, and meekly and
quietly as lamb I stood in the awful
presence of the postofice clerk "robed in
his uniform while a search was being made
for the two letters. When found, they were
taken to Mr.. Bronson, and by him,
after some controversy, delivered to ME.
positively state that did not 'ssnatch one
ofsthem from his hand''
The only point of difference between Mr..
Bronson and myself was my denial of his
right to open and examine documents which
l had satisfied him were accidentally dropped
into the box and not maiIable matter. while
expressed myself personally as willing he
should 40 so in this particular case, there
being nothing of private character in them.
he asserted: With much warmth, that he
possessed that right, and roughly took from
me the two letters, with an oath declaring
that II refused to recognize it he would not
return the notices to me. He did, never
theless, give them up. The only objection
asle language used was that of Mr.. Bronson
referred to. I was firm and earnest in
vindicating what still deem to be the right
of citizen, to be exempted from the i'm
pertinent intrusion of postoffice clerk into
private papers which had by mistake come
into his hands There were no such words
as 'church notices. upon the enclosures re-
ferred to, so they could not have been seen as
stated.
The doctor says che is not prepared to sa
whether or not my conduct to the letter
carrier all dressed up in his uniform was
such as to expose me to the penalties found
on page 81, section 3d. of the postal code.''
Whatever that may be. stand in view of
page 81, and section 95, and trembl clear
down into my boots. How very fortunate it
is for he that the doctor was not quite clear
in his Interpretation of page 81, section 95,
of the postal code. suppose was just on the
point of destruction somehow, but happily
did not know it. Some invisible agency in
terposed and l still survive, with conscious
ness, however, that ''page 81 section So of
the postal code'' is terrible thing to en-
| counter.
This occurrence found its way into print
without any intention to give it publicity on
my part. It is better, perhaps, that the
principle involved in this controversy should
be satisfactorily settled for the present, and
IN view of that fact the publication may be
OF service to the community at large.
Respectfully yours,
| CHARLES III. MANsHIp