St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-09-22
MIR. AGAIN.
He Defends Himself aud His City
Vigorously Against the p. r.
From Sundays Last Edition.l
To the Editor of The Globe.

From Sundays Last Edition.l
To the Editor of The Globe.
L herewith send you a communication an
swering the criticisms of the Pioneer Press
to my article, which you kindly published in
your yesterday mornings issue. l lave sent
a similar letter to the Pioneer Press. for rea-
sons which would appear from a perusal of
their criticisms on my statements. $50
/ have this to say, that, while you have
shown us no favor and sum degree of pref
uuice against us in this census fight, you
have treated us i'll an honorable manner.
The Pioneer Press charge me with making
three statements which they claim are abso-
lutely untrue. In the first place that they have
not refused to purchase paper1n Minneapolis
because it was not manufactured here. BE-.
Nelson, president of the paper company told
me some time ago ard repeated it again yes
terday, that Mr.. Driscoll told him that their
company would not purchase paper here at
the same price for the same grade that they
are buying elsewhere, and assigned as a rea-
son the hostility betweent the cities which
made them refuse to %patrenize Minneapolis
on even terms with other places. MI. Nc
Nair, the manage of the paper mill.
also told me that Mr.. Driscoll refused
to purchase paper, and assigned
as q reason the dissemination on the part
of their company to patroniZe Minneapolis;
and, secondly, an equal reluctance to patron
iZe a company in which | was said TO be a
~stockholder. As a reason for the latter part
IC QSslSlCO lldl L hdo PiSJCOiCOo tnCI lllCI-
est seriously in some way in the trouble be-
tween the two cities.
In the second place they deny that their
paper ever publicly recommended to the
people of ST. Paul not to patroniZe the flour
ing mills of Minneapolis. l saw a statement
in their paper some time ago which l and the
citizens of Minneapolis to the extent of a
goodly number. who spoke to me about it,
took for a straight recommendation on their
part to purchase the flour used in your city
elsewhere than of our mills. l have not kept
a file OF their papers. which L have taken
for the past twenty or thirty years. or
l would look 1t up and furnish the exact
reference. l do not see how this item could
have been intended for an advertisement. |
know that an advertisement of your local
mill, worded to that effect, appeared in those
columns but that was not the item | have
reference to.
In The third place. they claim that they
never refused to publish a communication
from me regarding their criticisms on me.
The day on which the editorial appeared, |
wrote a note, directing it plainly, and en-
closed it in a ten days return stamped en-
velope. 1t was placed in the mail and moth
ing was heard from il, although it was q
month or two ago. Ihave sent a great MANY
communications to that paper in the past
twenty or more years, and have succeeded in
all other cases in having my letters reach their
destination. In this respect in the past they
have always treated me courteously and in a
gentlemanly manner although at times criti-
cising me, which. of course, they had a per
feet right to do. If my letter did not reach
them, it was certainly sufficient reason for
my saying that they did not have time to an
wer it; while at the same time they were
justified in saying that | was mistaken as to
their refusal to publish my card.
Then they say. What degree of credence
can be reasonably claimed for other state
ments in his letter in which he AYERS, for ex-
ample. that Mr.. Kruse was not less rigid III
his methods of census taking than Mr..
Wardle." Even in this case they did not re-
port me correctly. l said that SO far as it
affects results. favorably or unfavorably. Mr..
Wardle's methods were much more favorable
than those of Mr.. Kruse. Had we had an
equal chance with st. Paul in this matter l
should have made no complaint.
They close with the many times reported
statement hat Minneapolis. under all assum-
ed numbering of houses-which l suppose
originated in the fertile imagination of the
Pioneer P~ress-gives your city within a few
thousand of as many inhabitants as should
be found here. Will they please explain how
they Know there are 1888 houses in this
city, in view of the following affidavit from
our city assessor:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, -
STATE OF MINNESOTA, IS.
Personally appeared before me-. a notary
public, j. c.. Plummer, who, being duly
sworn. doth depose and say that he person
ally as city assessor did, previously to the LIST
of May, 1890. accurately check on, or caused
to be checked, a map of Minneapolis each
and every building in said city, and that he
mas JUST counted the same, ana hnQS there
are 81, 173 houses in said city. exclusive of
school houses, churches, stores. factories or
public buildings, and that less than LOCO
were vacant on said first of May.
[Signedl j. PLUMMER, City Assessor.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
18th day of September.
CHARLES TuLLER,
Notary Public. Hennepin County, MINI.
Furthermore they stated that Minneapolis
has enumerated outside citizens, and, in one
way or other, padded the count. l would
like to know whether they or the citizens
committee care to enter into a detailed dis
cussion of this point. Is it not true that st.
Paul enumerators were detected III enumerat-
ing citizens outside of your city. and this con
clusively proved Can they show a single
case in which a name was entered on our
schedules that was not entitled to be counted?
Will they give the name of any such person,
and the house and number in which they
were enumeratedy
In justice to myself, and the citizens of
Minneapolis. l asked them to publish this
communication in as conspicuous a place as
they have the criticisms concerning Minnea-
polls and myself. Very truly yours,
II II