Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-02-26
READING UNsEALED LETTERS.
M. Manshtp Gives HIS Tersion of H..
P0stO0tce Natter.

Mr.. Mans7stp Gives HIS Tersion of the
Posto1tce Natter.
To tn Editor of the Globe.
DIR. Day, in half column article in ves-
terday mornings GLOBE, has undertaken to
give the history of transaction that &C.
CURED Saturday evening, in which Mr..
Bronson, an employee of the postoffice de-
ointment, and myself are the principal actors.
I think DR.. Day has been deceived and led
unwittingly 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 MI. Cronquist, the letter carrier,
on the corner of Third and Robert
as stated; that asked in a gentlemanIy way
for the two letters referred to, one addressed
to the GLOBE and the other to the PSoneer.
explaining at the time the nature of their
contents. Mr.. Cronquist satisfied me that
the regulations of the postofice department.
were such that he could not give them mn.
but must take them to the postoffice. and
pleasantly invited me to accompany him.
did so. did not ssfollow 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 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 'snatch one
of them 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
had satisfied him were accidentally dropped
into the box and not mailable matter, while
L expressed myself personally as willing he
should do so in this particular case. there
being nothing of a 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
theiess, give them up. The only objection
aele language used was that of Mr.. Bronson
referred to. I was firm and earnest in
indicating what still deem to be the right
OF citizen, to be exempted from the i'm
pertinent intrusion of postof6ca 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 ss
| stated.
The doctor says she is not prepared to say
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 IS, of the postal CODE"
Whatever that may be, stand in view of
page 81, and section s., and tremble clear
down into my boots. How very fortunate it
is for me that the doctor was not quite clear
in his Interpretation of page 81, section IS,
of the postal code. I suppose was just on the
| point of destruction somehow, but happily
| did not know it. Some invisible agency in
terposed and I still survive, with a conscious
ness, however, that SPACE 81 section IS 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. 1t 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 Fl. MANsHIP