The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1885-01-16


and many other free things. l am TAX
ing and reading thoroughly good Re-
publican paper that has given no such
offense as you have repeatedly done.
But what about "Mr. Jno. F. Lee?'
He claims to know Mr.. st. John and
charged him with q great crime. Where
is his proof? Who knows that Mr.. Lee
is honest? We have his bare assertion
and not particle of proof. Mr.. st. John
emphatically denies. | can name dog
en- well-known men who know Mr.. st.
John as well as Mr.. Lee can, and who
assert that he is pure, honest, upright,
christian man. But | can give you stron-
ger testimony against st. John by quota
ton than your famous article. Mr.. Clark
son, editor of the Des MONIES, (Iowa),
Register and member of the National Re.
publican Committee, says that he had
charge of the bushes Of buying up st.
John, but the price was too high, hence
the bargain failed, and the Democrats
bought him. What grand old party!
Deliberately giving part Of it's cam
bribery and corruption business and
publishing it unblusningiy to the world
Ia prove St. John fraud! suppose
theS would have kept still and given
INN fat place if he had accepted their
bid and they had won. Grand party to
keep in power! You can SEE the kind
OF men that have filed offices under Re-
publican rule heretofore. But We de
in4nd the proof from Mr.. Clarkson for
by his own confession his word is not to
be believed), and he SAYS it is contiden-
tial and he cannot give it without the
consent of st. John. Consistency again!
He has betrayed confidence by telling us
the contents of the letter, but will not
show us the language. A lie upon the
face of it and needs no denial. How
ever, so many Republicans are so anx-
ious to believe il that it may be we'll that
both Mr.. st. John and the chairman of
the National Prohibition Committee,
John b. Finch, in letters now before me
denounce the statement as an infamous
falsehood and challenge Mr.. Clarkson
or any other man to furnish any letter,
or any other evidence, Of the truth of
their statements. Now, Mr.. Editor,
when you will omit the epithets, and
contempt" when you will seek for the
Uhole truth and publish the contradic-
tons to such letters as that of Mr.. Lee,
we will read all your frank, candid ar
guments and make no complaint. We
hope you will hear st. John in spite of
the advice of all good Republicans to
stay away and heat him and his follow
ers with contempt. By the way, think
John B. Cough, Jutkins, with many
more equally prominent, and the thous-
ands of ministers, who with them voted
for st. John, and tens of thousands of
women who prayed for his election, or
at least some success Of their cause, will
survive the contempt of all who feel it.
Respectfully,
j. N. LIsCoMB.
Now we have no disposition to enter
into a minute dissection of the above ar
ticle, but would before giving it any at
tention whatever, assure the reverend
gentleman that he is more alarmed than
hurt. His premises are altogether loo
broad, for a judicious perusal of our
recent editorial mentions in this
regard, will convince our readers
readers that he has magnifed our asser-
tons with the lens of his own magma
ton, and converted the ground on which
we stand into mirage of unparalleled
disproportion, by allowing the rays of
his comprehension to be refracted to an
extent, by the surround
ing strata of misuse, more visionary than
real. Because We embodied a little par
alipsis in the caption of our editorial on
Jan. 2, he deems it altogether uniting
for the purpose, or in other words, a
term of too indefinite significance. But
this is a matter of little consequence,
and We not feel justified IN going in.
10 an chronological analys sis of term
easily comprehended.
The writer certainly overlooks the
TACT that we paved the way to the utter.
inces contained in the production in
question, in the most careful manner, for
he express purpose of warding off any
such misconceptions as this gentleman
Is laboring under. In the Introductory
OF that article, We stated in
brief, but perfectly plain sentences our
which read rs follows:
THE FREE Press, it may as we'll be
is no friend to John Peter
Il. John; and while il has all due regard
or temperance men, as we'll rs Christians
md law-abiding citizens, it will speak
he mind of its editor freely, frankly and
earlessly as regards that srch-traitor to
he Republican party, who recently
headed the Prohibition ticket"
How the gentleman can infer that we
include himself and other Prohibition
sts with this man of Kansas, Is beyond
Another instance of much |
annoyance, and source of great anguish |
o him, is the "epithets" we employed !,
o express the utterly absurd assump.
ions in the demand of some individuals
o have their paper stopped. Here,
gain, he takes 1t all to himself and 9TH
r Prohibitions when there Is not the
lightest reason for this self.applied
harterization, in the editorial he assumes
o criticise. There is one more state
nent in the above article to which we
make brief reference. He hopes we will
ondescend to print the contradictions
0 such letters as We have published
oncerning st. John. The FREE PRESS
las never yet fallen 40 far from the en-
hence of standard journalism, as to re-
use to let both sides of any public issue
% heard, and may the day be long SPAR
d when it will.
Finally, we take the same ground to-
ay that we have ever taken, that is, to
peak our mind frankly and fearlessly.
he editor Of newspaper must shape
nd maintain It's tone. regardless Of the
opposition or dissatisfaction Of o few
rho may not agree with him on the Is
ues of the day. It is the essence OF the
pirit of "Bycottism" to charge the pub
sher Of public journal Of wrong doing
'hen he makes use of the editors birth
ight of free expression, and TO ap'
roach him with mein dictatorial, a. has
cen done In our case, and that 10 the
eminent we conveyed throughout the
rticle for which we are taken to task.
In this matter we have sssaiied no
asn's. or party Of mems, principles |