St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-09-23
DONNELLY HITS BACK.
The Slanderous Attack of the P. P.
Replied to.
ST. PAUL, Mimi, Sept. 81, 1888.

issue of yesterday to a discussion of my pri-
vate affairs, / suppose you viii be willing to
give me some space in which to reply to your
attacks.
In the years 1878 and 1879 the firm of
Ole P. Rice q Co. carried on mercantile
business at Donnelly, in Stevens county. /
was farming on large scale near the town.
dealt with them for goods used on my farm,
and paid them considerable sums of money.
They obtained a note from me, on Nov. l, 1879,
by leading me to believe that they had fur
nished me with certain quantities and quail
ties of goods. I subsequently found, from
my hired men on the farm, fcr was absent
much of the time, that they had imposed
upon me, both as to the amount and value
OF the goods so furnished; and told them l
would not pay the full amount of the note
unless jury decided that 1 should do so.
We had stormy interview, and they did not
dare for four years to bring any action upon
the note. subsequently saw Ole P. Rice in
Willmar, and he agreed that if 1 would pay
the face of the note he would throw off the
accumulated interest. This l assented to as
compromise, and promised to pay the face
of the note just as soon as I could raise the
money. Consequently when an attorney in
Willmar wrote me, in July last, that Messrs
Rice & Co. were in great ''present financial
embarrassment that their capital was
small, and ''the times pressing" and, in
short, that they were on the verge of bank
ruptcy, and requested me to help them out
by paying part, if could not
not pay all the note, and give new note
secured by chattle mortgage for the remain
der, / naturally supposed that so humble
and eivila missive referred to a settlement
on the basis of the compromise we had pre-
Viously agreed upon, and instead Of answer
ing the attorney, l wrote directly to Rice 81
Co. and told them that had not the money
to pay "my Indebtedness TO them (not the
note and interest), but that l had reason
able hope of being elected to Office this fall,
and if elected 1 would be able to pay ''av7tat /
OWed Hens'' mot the note and INTEREST,". I
did not ask them to work or vote for me
politically; simply enquired as to the poll
teal sentiment in their own county. l do
not think there was anything unworthy or
dishonorable in such letter. Surely. if
elected, l could not put my surplus salary to
better use than to pay my debts, and civil
inquiry, as to the public sentiment in their
county, was entitled to a civil answer. And
/ cannot see that it will benefit Major Strait,
or any one else, to drag the evidences of my
poverty before the public eye, even accom-
panied by sneers at my literary labors. No
one accuses Major Strait of either poverty or
literary labors.
But these creatures, Rice 81 Co. who had
just appealed so pitifully to my commiser-
alton, on account of their Strengthened fnan-
ccs and impending bankruptcy, as soon as
they received my letter, thought that they
now had an acknowledgment that l owed the
whole debt, and without deigning to reply to
my communication by letter, or even postal
card, they clapped a summons on me at my
home in Nininger at once, although the note
had two years to run before the statute of
limitations would affect their claim.
But my patience was not yet exhausted.
AS the attorney had asked me for a chattle
mortgage | again wrote Rice 81 Co. refer
ring to my defence against their claim, and
offering them two Mccormick six foot self
binders, nearly as good as new, and an
Edward harvester, the whole having cost me
over $500, in paymentof their claim for S415.
Again this insignificant Rice ignored me and
replied negatively through his hired pettifog-
ger. ! then, on my way through Hastings to
take the train, stopped at the Office
of my attorneys, Messrs. Hodgson 81 Schal-
them the nature and character of my defense.
They called my attention to the fact that
Rice 81 Co. had not sworn to the truth of their
complaint, and that therefore l need not
swear to the answer; and as | was in a hurry
to take the next train, they said to me that
they would draw an affidavit that | was a res
ident of Dakota county and demand a change
of venue from Kandiyohi county to Dakota
county, and that they would prepare, at their
leisure, an answer of general denial of the
complaint; and that if this was not sufficient
TO let in my defense as to valuable consider
alton for the note, they would subsequently
ask the district court Of Dakota county for
leave TO amend their answer. / accordingly
signed the affidavit of residence in Dakota
county and left them. l never saw the an
swer until it appeared in your paper. Neither
the complaint nor answer were ever sworn to-
You will therefore see how unjust you were
when you said in your editorial columns:
at is still more curious to see how promptly
ne denied and TcpUdidted on oath the instrument
he had just acknowledged when 1t became too
sadly evident that he couldn't use it in that way
You basely pervert and alter the very com
munication in your own columns to charge
me with perjury. Plain men call such an
action as this, forgery; and there are crimi-
nails in the penitentiary at Saltwater serving
out terms for less offences.
In 1876, to prevent the gross oppression of
the people, by creditors bringing suits against
citizens in counties hundreds of miles distant
from their place of residence, "a then com
mon practice), the Legislature passed an act
(chapter XLVII General Laws 1870,
which provides that citizens Of the
state shall be s1ed only in the
county in which they reside. never dwelt
in Kandiyohi county and hope never to live
In it, Mt least so long as Judge Brown is on
the bench. Hence L demanded change Of
venue under this law. This ended Judge
Browns connection with the case. 1t was
his duty, upon such demsnd made, to there
upon change the place of trial to Dakota
county. What did he dol He knew that j
was in the midst Of my canvass for Congress;
Mr.. Hodgsou so wrote him; he thought he
saw an opportunity to punish and injure
one who was copspicuously opposed to the
party which had made him judge, so he pro-
ceeded to try the case himself, on er pdrte afli-
davits, denying me that right of trial BY jury
guaranteed to me by the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution OF the state; aud compelling me
10 abandon my canvass, and carry my wit
nesses $50 miles, at great expense, to try the
case before him, or to submit to Judgment
st his hands. And when he made his order
setting aside nv answer, he did not do it
iu the few words usually employed by judges,
but he put an argument of justification into
the belly of his order, as il with special view
TO its subquent publication.
And, furthermore, after setting aside the
answer as insufficient, he gave us no time to
put in another answer, When he overruled
our position, that he was without jurisdic-
- civ