New-York tribune., 1882-03-12
MR.. DUNNELL IN A Dill EMMA.

WAsHING1oN March 11.-COngTessman Dunnell.
of Minnesota, appears to be in a dilemma for which
he has nobody to blame except himself. In The
TRIBUNE of February 26 there was published in a
st. Paul dispatch letter, dated in the House OF
Representatives December 20. and signed by ii.
VI. Dunnell, as follows:
DO the leading Republicans begin to talk at all about
political action for next year You understand my
plans and that of my friends. | shnl make good
square fight for the senate and friends believe hId
better run for the House. | don't want you to an
nouncc this at all, but should be very glad TO near
ton IS out of the way, aud don't know who VIII DC
in the field. Possibly IL VIII be Governor Arm
strong This is enough 10 Indicate Wakefield in the
22d and is General Baker James OBrlen is thought
10 aspire to the House. sound Jones. Had Detter
write him friendlyf
On the same day n TRIBUNE correspondent saw
Mr.. Dunnell at the National Hotel III regard to this
matter. Mr.. Duunell made the following statement,
which was published in TIE TRIBUNE of Febru-
airy 27:
This is an unmdgatcd lie. Inever wrote such letter
believe that the thing has appeared in Ihe Albert
editor Of the paper w. W Willams was formerly post
master at Blue Earth, and removed from office for
nnc aud me took an active part in the bolt against me
two years suppose he intends to do NE all the
harm lie can.
In The Minneapolis Tribune of a subsequent date
appeared the following sent from Washington on
March Z:
Dunuol saws he wrote the letter to Davidson. He
admits 1t unwisc at tais time, but that i WIS merely
friendly letter the same as would be written by pOlti-
elan To- 0asclrtain the feeling his constituents. He
lie never told The NEw-IoEK TEIBUNE man It was " an an
uunitigated lie" What he did say was that ne hal no
recollection Of writing letter at such date and II SUCH
a one existed it must oe forgery lie now, however,
says II Is genuine
These publications have attracted very general
attention and provoked considerable newspaper dis
cussion in Minnesota. According to the last one
Mr. Dunnell admits that he told two different stories
Io++o IN thp off IL for
gerry and III the other admitting that it was genuine.
Mr. Dunncll also told another story and that he
denies In his interview with THE TRIBUNE CORE
spondcnt Mr. Dunncll used this exact language
This is an unmitIgated lie. L never wrote such q
letter" The correspondent wrote these words in
his note book then and there in Mr.. DunnelPs
presence. They may not be true but they are the
words Mr.. Dunnell used
In that conversation Mr. Dunnell did not use the
word forgery" nor did he refer to the date of
the letter The correspondent accepted Mr.. Dun
nei's denial exactly as he meant it to be accepted
as an unqualified denial that he had written any
such letter as the one attributed to him. The Ian
guago was strong. but it was Mr.. DunnelPs and not
the correspondents Moreover, in conversation
with ut least one member of the House of Repre-
sentatives this subject, Mr.. Dunnell denied the
authenticity of the letter quite emphatcally as
he did ia his conversation with the cOrreSponden ut
Of THE TRIBUNE.
1t thus appears that Mr. Dunnell has achieved
the remarki6le feat of making three-cOrnered is
sue of ycraciy with himself. He first wrote the let
er then denied that he ever wrote 1t, and called 1t
" an unmtigaed lie'; then denied that he had de-
nicd writing it and denied that he had called it an
unmitigatcd lIo." Minnesota people ut Washington
say that the letter itself, though foolish one.
would not perhaps have done Mr. Dunnell much
HARM but that his denial of a letter which he now
admits to be genuine will make him a great deal of
trouble in his tor seat III either House OF