The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1890-12-11

tificate Of election was made ont -
advance of the count, and handad
to Mr.. Price the moment the res,,]t
was announced, despite the fact
that writ Of injunction had been
served upon the auditor of Morri-
son county to restrain him from
issuing certificate until the ques-
ton OF who was rightly entitled to
it could be judicially determined.
MIR. Stivers was present at the can
vass and applauded the sharp prac-
tees of the board; he claimed then
and claims now that the action of
the auditor was right and legal and
that the courts would sustain him.
But Mr.. Stivers knows in his in
nermost heart-it is a debatable
question whether he has heart or
not, we are inclined to believe that
he is all gall and gizzard- that Mr..
Price was not legally entitled to
the certificate, hence, through the
columns of his own measly rag, the
Brainerd Journal, aided and allotted
by a sympathetic St. Paul Globe
reporter, he attempts to manufac-
ture public sentiment to influence
the courts and the Legislature in
favor of MI. Price and against r.
G. Dunn. In order to cover up
rottenness in Morrison county he
attempts to prove that there was
attempted fraud in Mile Laos
county in the interest Of Dunn,
Mr.. Chas. A. Dickey, a staunch
Democrat, and one of the canvass
ing board Of Mile Laos county,
called Mr.. Stivers down. Stivers
apologized in his last issue to Mr..
Dickey, but accused Auditor Van
Alstein of forgery. We quote
from Stivers' paper:
HAS THERE BEEN FORGERY?
1t appears from Mr.. Diclzey's letter
that the only set of returns he signed
or knows anything about is the set
made out Nov. 9Th, the Saturday after
election. The corrected Returns''
that were made out on Nov. 18th he
knows nothing about. These later re-
turns were the ones that were counted
at Little Falls. Yesterday we wrote to
w. H. Workman, editor of the Little
Falls Herald, asking him to look at the
returns that we're canvassed and see if
the names of Messrs. Dickey and Dorr
are signed to them. In reply Mr..
Workman writes:
''The votes canvassed are signed by VanAlstein
Dickey and Dorr. 1t looks as if the last two
names were written by the same person. If you
have Dickey's signature please send it down and
will compare it with the at the court house,
This revelation clears Messrs. Dickey
and Dorr of any suspicion connected
with the miserable affair. If: Mr..
Dickey's letter is true, and we have
not the least doubt of it's truthfulness,
it follows as a necessary conclusion that
his name and the name of Mr.. Dorr
have been forged as signatures to these
returns. We greatly regret that the
names of these gentlemen have been
dragged into this affair, but it is. the
fault of the man who forged their
names, and not our fault. If their
signatures were genuine it would neces-
sarily follow that they had a knowledge
of the crookedness that had been done,
but from the information at hand it
looks as if the guilty parties thought it
better to forge their names than to re-
veal to them what had taken place. 1t
looks as if somebody was liable to get
into very serious trouble.
The asinine brays Of the ignora-
mus are appalling. Any five
year old school boy would know
better than make such break.
Any man with a smattering of
common sense knows that the
original election returns are filed
in the auditors Office, and dupli-
cate copies are made out, by the
auditor, and forwarded to the Of
fcials designated by law to re-
ceive them. We refer the learned
gentleman from Crow Wing to
Sec. 81, Chap. 4, general laws Of
1887. His bluff about somebody
getting into serious trouble is
typical of the windy Brainerd bull
dozer.
Mr.. Dickey, in his letter to Mr..
Stivers, truthfully informed him
that no one in Princeton knew