The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1885-02-06

THE RerieW thinks that the discussion
Of Fosters folly should cease, but as Fos-
ter followed his explanation direct from
where he should have stopped, with q
bitter attack upon the resolutions, anc
an attempt to bedabha.s in the slums o.
dishonesty Ike name of one whose shoe
'(latchets he (Foster) was unworthy II
stoop down and untasten, and whose
most miniature mental qualities would
out-dazzle Mankato's representative
most ascendant ones; so the RerietD ap.
ponds its plea for silence and peace,
with a brazen-iaced and malignant
charge of conspiracy on the part of the
other members of the Blue Earth coun-
ty representation, against the immacu-
late Pa" for the fell purpose Of de-
stroying his future influence. PAS
influence is a nonentity. He has no In
fiuence in the legislative body at pres
emit, if he ever had. and there is no
probability of his ever acquiring any.
The conception that foul conspiracy is
necessary to destroy that which has no
existence, real or prospective, is squirt
of imagination that would do honor to a
Dante or Shakespeare. This is charac-
teristic of that sheet, however, hypocri-
cy and inconsistency being its governing
traits. A plea for cessation closely fol-
lowed by accusations against innocent
parties, is very unique way of quieting
the rightful censure of Mr.. Fosters dis.
respectful demeancr toward the dead.
But the height of the great-pacifer.
across.the-ways puerility is attained in
these words:
Mr.. Fosters whole offending, 80 far as his
official action Is concerned, was In not answer
ing 20 his name. He made no speech or un-
friendly remarks rs the published criticisms
Indicate, nor did any act to which exception
could be taken. He did not even apply TO
have his name omitted from the affirmative
was the case in the announcement OF the vote
and subsequent reading OF the journal.
The quotation is true in letter but not
in spirit. His offending "aOas in not an
swering TO his name," or, otherwise IN
not voting for the resolutions. 1t Is true
that che made no speech" but does the
ReUieW presume to offend the sense of
its readers by aiming to have them be-
lieve that it was necessary for Foster to
hurl upon the house a scathing invec-
tive, or denunciatory speech to consti-
tute the offense in question? The effort
is too too "wishy-washy" for acceptance |
by an intelligent an incensed constitu-
ency. "He did not apply to have his
name stricken from the affirmative when |
ii was read and re-read in his hearing"
But this does not excuse his silence
when the ballot was taken. If he had
the human qualities he processes, the
intelligence his conceit leads him to be-
lieve he has, or the powers of Gin
fiuence" the Review gives him credit for,
he would have spoken his name man
fully when his fellow legislators did, at
the time when the resolutions were I'M
der consideration. The attempt to egg
this matter on by drawing innocent par
ties into controversy, harmonizes very
poorly with the compassionate reference
Of the Review to the feelings of the be-
reaved relatives, whom We all concede
have borne terrible sorrow. If the
self-constituted moral sheet across the
way would quench the flames it must
not add new fuel.
The Review must feel proud Of its dis
tinction as being the only defender Mr..
Foster has for his very unmanly and un-
mannsrly crime.