St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-09-14


caase of the bonds these parties would go
into court and ask for your removal, and in
that event wouldn't give dollar for the
Wnole tning. Upon a moments reflection,
tba,, nr. hittson was right about 1t, and
then and there. with Mr. Hill. Mr. Fisher aud
mySelI. It was sacredIy agreed to-"
Objected to-
:, Question-State what was said by the par
ties. vas SOU ~ VIZ
Answer-Mr. Kittson ana agreed that that
was the best plan to pursue. and Mr.. Fisher,
a. nlatter OF course. had nothing to do with
Thought maybe it was good thing. That
Nus Mas d very sacred point with Mr. Kittson
Clear through the transaction. He looked at
II as very important.
MT! MI. Fisher also testified that defendant
Alttson used this language:
NY recolection is that Mr.. Kittson said
t ttiat MI: farley-l wouldn't be positive about
tne exact words-whether he said he had
hiaue great change in the property, or
Wnether he said he had improved the prop
ertv, out that is the substance OF it-that he
noticeu u cnange in the management; and
NY recoiectlon is that Mr. Kittson also said
oetWeen you and /, l didn't have much
ctoin1idence in the former management 1
tnink Mr.. Kittson said something like that
also: wouldn't undertake to give the exact
Now Mr.. Farley did not take possession
9laer me trustees until October, 1876. He
ulu luxe possession under the company
IN March, 1876, and assuming that the Ian
guage OF the complainant was used through
an lnadvertence or q mere mistake of mem
DRY, and that the reference was to posses
SION under the company, it shows that the
conversation could not have been earlier
that March ID, and according to Mr. Fisher
was siong after possession taken in March,
aIiu a1ter MI. Farley had made great change
IN the property. Now after this testimony
uau an Deen given with these particularities
OF date and weather and remarks it ap-
ppeareo tnat IN the latter part OF March and the
n fs part OF April, which was Immediately
aIter MI Farley took possession as manager,
Mr. Barnes, one of the firm of Kennedy &
CO., and the president of the First division
company under the arrangement between the
stoek ana bondholders, visited st. Paul to
look after the property And it further ap-
peared from the
ooMPLAINANT's OWN LETTER
OF June s. 1876. that prior to that time the
GeIendantS had had a conversation with Mr..
par1es IN reference to the purchase of these
bonus, ana that the conversation was so long
prior thereto that the defendants were be-
ginning to be worried in respect to the mat
ter: This is his language:
N w. httson is getting anxious about
IN Dig operation of getting control of the
FIRST division, also extension lines. He can
get the money. What do you think can be
zone; you have his proposition in your men,
ory. would again say to you think there
is a pig thing in the main hne-three and six
million bonds at their present selling price,
Yours etc. p FARIEyn
This shows beyond any reasonable doubt
that In March or April, and when Mr. Barnes
was In ST. Paul, defendants had to the know
iiedge Oh the complainant, been talking to
MN as representative of the Dutch commits
tee IN respect to the purchase of these bouds.
what shall be done, therefore, as to the sug-
gestlon that Mr.. Kittson was anxious that
MI. Fariey be interested because of the great
cnange he had wrought in the property since
his possession? What of the statement Of
Mr. Fisher. that the first conversation was
curing excessively warm weather, and the
maj one weeks afterward, when it had be.
gun to turn cool and they had fires? Again, it
appears from the above, it WAS incontestable
mat III the early part of 1876 defendants
HILL and klttsOn had some negotiations with
the agent OF the Dutch committee in refer
ence 10 the purchase of the bonds. The
PENDANTS Hill and Kittson with George
stephen and Donald A. Smith, was dated the
18TH OF March, 1878, and signed by the
members OF the Dutch committee on April 3,
1873 During these two years at least
passed from Hill and Kittson to the Dutch
committee, and negotiations both by letter
and telegram and orally, were carried on be-
tween these four parties and Kennedy & Co.,
the agents of the Dutch committee. During
all these negotiations not scrap of writing
appears which shows that Mr.. Farley had
any interest. Neither the Dutch committee
nor their agents knew that he was or claimed
to be an associate Messrs. Smith and
stephen. actively engaged in the negotiations,
frequently communicating with Hill and
K1ttson with interests as between themselves
understood and finally settled by contract in
Writlng), neither knew nor suspected that
Mr.. Farley was in any way Interested and all
the information he had i'll reference to the
transactions seemed to have been acquired
from Kennedy q Co.. who had selected him
as their representative in Minnerota, and
from communications which they sent
- rorh inn r
Such ignorance on the part of these various
gentlemen is to my mind strangely incon-
siStent with the existence of the alleged re-
latlon between complainant and defendants.
Again, after the final execution of the con-
tract between the four associates and the
Dutch committee in the spring of 1873
more than year elapsed before the consum-
nation OF the transaction and the foreclos-
ure sales IN the spring of 1879. During this
time, and in the execution of the contract
the associates agreed to complete some I'M
finished portion of the road, and to do this
orders of the court and the active co-opera
ton of Mr.. Farley as receiver were requisite.
Mr.. Farley seems to have been
RELUCTANT AND SLOW,
and the associates were frequently seeking
through Kennedy & Co. to urge and acceler-
ate his action. How inconsistent this is
with the idea that all the while there was a
partnership arrangement between him and
Hill and Kittson. If he knew that he was
partner and they knew he was partner.
would not their communications have been
directly to him. and would anything more
have been needed than mere suggestion
from them to him? Further than this, on
Feb. %, 1879, after the contract had been
executed between the associates and the
Dutch committee and the matter was CON-
ing on for final consummation, Mr.. Farley
writes this letter 10 Messrs. Kennedy & Co.:
81 have your confidential favor of the 18th.
for which am under many obligations. 1
would be pleased to have your understand
ing OF the contract as to the number of bonds
of each issue Messrs. Hill and Kittson and
their associates are under obligation TO take
under the arrangement. You will under
stand the drift of my inquiries. 1t has been
more than intimated to me that Messrs. H.
and K. would be pleased to make me inter
ested in their shares of what may result from
this trade in order to have me help them
work the matter through in Minnesota, care
of the property, etc. My judgment IS some
of these bond is very cheap at the price
named, and others very much higher than 1
would pay. Yours, etc., j. P. FARLEY"
To which Mr.. Kennedy, on Feb. 25. sent
this reply:
I'VE think it will pay you to take an inter-
est with K. Il H., and we are glad to hear
that they have offered it to Won The pur-
chase has now been concluded; we have so
advertised the committee at Amsterdam by
cable to day, and it will be publicly an
there tomorrow morning"
On May % of that year complainant writes
to John s. Barnes this letter:
''Since the election of Bigelow and Galusha
as directors in the new company, meu of no
money, railroad experience or influences,
and myself left out in the cold, am forced
to the conclusion that my time and claims on
the st. Paul & Pacific is short. 1 did expect
better things of Hill and Kittson. I had
talk with Jim Hill last night. He disclaims
any intention on his part to ignore my claims.
But he is such liar / can't believe him. 1t
is matter of astonishment to every
person in ST. Panl to see the
way Jim handles Mr.. Stephen. He
is VIGOROUSLY known to be the biggest liar in
the state. Mr.. Kittson has told me time and
again that Jim Hill worst man he ever saw
Upham, P H. Kelly, Thompson, and in
fact every citizen of st. Paul if they
would spe1k their sentiments they would
all tell the same story. You must not
blame me if 1 should try to geteven with |
Jim Hill before / leave here"
And on May 20 to Mr. Kennedy this letter: !
ssYour letter 26th reached me this morn |
ing fortunately. We had just made arrange |
ments to send the car to Chicago with Mr. ,,
Smith and Lord Elveston. / hone it will |
reach there in time for YOU and your party |
Pressing business compels me to be absent |
few days. / have had some sharp talk with |
Mr. HILL If he persists in his present course |
to ignore all my claims to share in the donors |