St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-11-02
The SAGE SPITS FIRE.
DOnnelly Reviews at Length
the Recently Decided
Libel Suit.
Some Instructions He Thinks
the Judge Should Have
Given the Jury.
His Private and Personal Rec
ord Should Have Been
Shown in Evidence.
Several Of the Witnesses
Against Him Handled
Without Gloves.

in st. Paul, and enjoyed, as he said.
day OF rest, the first for some time. He
was in communicative mood. and a
GLOBE reporter asked a few leading
questions, which resulted in a long and
interesting talk. Politics had been
preached, and Mr.. DOnnelly was asked
if it were true that in the recent libel
suit he had testified he never had voted
the Democratic ticket.
YES" said the Sage, 81 said never
voted the Democratic ticket in my life.
l did not mean that l had never voted
for Democrats, for L have probably voted
for more Democrats in the last twenty
years than for Republicans. What 1
meant was that had never supported
the Democratic ticket as Democrat l
am not ungrateful for the generous sup
port given me scores of times at the bal
lot box by Democrats. but l have been
since 1872 an Independent, an Anti
MOnopolist, a Peoples party man; and
when L cO-Operated with the Democracy
it was as an ally, not as a member of
their organization. | voted for Horace
Greeley, tie Democratic candidate for
president, as a Liberal Republican,
with Albert Schaffer and thousands Of
other Republicans. l voted for Gen.
Hancock, as did great many other
GreenbackerS. | should be sorry ifany
Democrat Inexperienced my meaning
and thought L meant to insult them
nothing could be farther from my
thoughts.
The Course OF the Judge.
"Aow was l pleased with the course
of Judge Hooker in the trial of the case?
1t was in many respects fair-cOnSider-
ing Judge Hooker had been Mr.. Wash
burns attorney in 1879, and travelled
with me ali over the Third district TAX
ing testimony, he representing Mr.
Washburn. think he intended to be fair,
but it seems to me lie erred in several
respects. He should have told the Jury
that there was not Seintiila of evil
dence TO sustain the charge that l,
or Finley, wrote the anonymous
letter to Springer. No one swore
to anything of the kind, and no dOcu-
mentarY evidence was afforded to show
any such fact. But, instead of charg-
ing the jury that they must dismiss that
charge from their minds, he permitted
that hireling of the corporations
Fiandrau-tO argue to the jury that |
wrote that letter, against the protest of
Mr.. Wellington. No other Judge in
ChristendOm would have permitted such
thing. The charge itself was absurd
that L wrote Springer letter offering
him $1,000 to keep WaShburn in his seat
and defeat myself! And the plea that
it was done to enrage Springer against
WaShburn is equally preposterOus;
the character of the average congress-
man is. | am sorry to say, not such that
any sensible man would dare to put
such suggestions in his head. But
Flandrau not only argued TO the Jury
that | wrote the letter without little
of evidence, but proceeded to falsify
what actually took place in connection
with 1t in the grOSSeSt manner, without
a word of testimony to support him. and
the judge permitted him to GO on with
his foul pettifOggng.
The Clarke Charge.
"Then | think the judge should have
stated to the jury that there was not a
particle OF evidence to sustain the
charge that [ had bribed, or attempted
to bribe, Charles Fl. Clarke in 1869. The
only testimony in reference to this was
Bill Kings statement that, in the fall
OF 1869, Clarke showed him a letter in
which [ demanded the repayment of
$500. loaned Clarke at some past date.
Is every man who writes a dunning let
ter to a debtor demanding the repay
mayment of money lOaned) thereby adj
lHlIllIS ILtl lC COiullllll6u DTlDefYT NV
testimony showed that the money was
loaned by me to Clarke in the
fall CT 1868, while l was
congressman, and while l was
in receipt of nearly $4,000 a year from
salary and mllage. I offered to intro
duce letters from Clarke, showing that
he was, and had been for years my
warm political supporter; that the loan
was an ordinary transaction between
friends, with a promise of repayment,
and that l had written him several let
tiers demanding repayment, and would
have sued him but that learned he was
"eXecutlOn-pToOf." There was no con-
tradictiOn of this testimony; and my
character for truth and veracity was un-
impeached.
Peculiar Kind of Testimony.
"Then as to my.character. 1t seems to
me that the court erred in permitting
questions to be asked as to my reputa-
ton for political and legislative homes
ty," and shutting out testimony as to
my character for truth, veracty and
general honesty. A man cannot be
honorable, upright and faithful to duty
i'll all the details of his daily life and at
the same time be a man who would
sell one of his constituents, in legisla-
tive capacity, betray the trusts reposed
in him and he Legislative black
mailer cOrruptionist and scalawag gen
orally. A rogue is a rogue in every
thing; and an. honest man is an honest
man in everything. The promptness
and eagerneSS with which the counsel
for the Pioneer Press objected to any
evidence being offered as TO my general
character for truth, veracity and homes
ty showed that their detectives, after
months OF search. could find nothing on
which to hang a charge. As husband,
father, citizen, was unaSsailable
But after the Pioneer Press had for
twenty-five years been filling the state
with its ISLANDERS as to my course IN
congress, it would have been strange
indeed if they had not so far injured my
reputation that good, true and disin-
who would swear that my character in
that respect was bad. But they pro-
duced no such men. Every witness
against me was a political enemy
broken-down political hacks most of
them [ had defeated for Office, thus
showing that their regulations did not
stand as high. with those who knew us
both, as mine cid. The only man had
not defeated for office was E. A. Rich,
of Hastings. / did not run against him
because no political party could be
found, of any complexion, that would
put him up against me, ur put him up
for any Office OF any kind whatever. I
admit that MIR. Rich is a good business
man. He was elected years ago. for
one session, to the house: he was a very
Door man, l am glad to know that he