St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-03-09
MINNEAPOLIS EVENTS
What the Underwriters COM
mittea viii Now Seek to
Investigate.
Ramifications OF a Political
Deal Which Should Be
Dug Up.
The Ministers Roast the Hen
nepin Delegation for Pa
troll Limits Extension.
EX-Health Inspector Briggs
Denies That He Is q
"WoOdchuek."


underwriters union and member of
the committee now Investigating the
management of the Lumber Exchange
ire. Tor information regarding the work
OF the committee.
Have You anything to say concern
ing what your committee has done or is
dOinE?' was the first question.
No, noL word" was the prompt
reply.
Has the committee finished the in
VesugauOn?'
Yes; the fire Investigation is fin
ished. with the emphasis on fire"
Nv I'll arepOru be submitted MOndav?'
No: there Is a vast amount OF work
90 be done yet before the report VIII be
ready.
That was all Nj. Preston would say,
but that was enough to indicate what
course the committee viii now pursue.
Mr.. Preston was careful to say that the
''1re3 investigation was over; he did
not say Thar the committee had done
entirely with investigation. HE IN
quirY into the manner IN which the fire
was handled was closed Yesterday with
the hearing OF testimony from (. b.
Long and d. /. NanniX. Alr. Long was
architect of the Lumber Exchange. He
testified TO its construction as being
slow burning building. and ManniX ell
deaVOred TO bring about compromise
between tie committee and the ire de-
parment.
There was one other witness before
The commission yesterday, and the call
ing of that one indicated the form which
the investigation viii now assume. The
commission mas secured all the evidence
II wants as 10 the management of this
particular IRE. They are satisfied that
It was improperly handled: that the
fiTemen were negligent; that they over
looked the sUanuDlpe al the rear OF the
Exchange until it WAS too late. Now
they want TO know why an opportunity
was given for the entrance OF mlSman-
agemenJ into department so vitality
important TO the city as the ire depart
ment. EX-Aid. Tom Downs was the
witness called as a beginning upon this
part OF the investigation. He was called
TO tell what ne knew about the causes
for the removal OF L. L. StetsOn from
the head OF the FIRE department.
Downs told the committee that the
first thing which miIigated against
Frank StetsOn was the fact that he aid
not place more ScandinavidnS on the
force. Downs had understood that
Chief StetsOn did not think the Scandi-
navians made good 1iremen; it was no
personal feeling against the race;
merely his own views as to efficiency.
Then. continuing his story as TO the
causes which led to the chiefs
removal. he said that there
were al least TWO members of
the council who were opposed TO him on
what might be called personal grounds.
These grounds were not personal griey-
auces-HO bitter personal enmity-but
We're founded on the fact that Chief
SteTsOn could not be worked" These
two aldermen were opposed to StetSOu
because they could not make him do
what they wished as TO appointments
and as TO the purchasing OF supplies.
Ntetson knew what he wanted
to do, and he proposed TO do
IN the council said. and no matter what
that man s politics. As TO the present
state of affairs Downs said it was his
opinion that Runge'S appointment was
as much q surprise 10 hunge is II was to
anybody. He did not believe that
Ruuge expected il. and thought Runge
was satisfied where ne was. The eX-
alderman said that the place had been
offered to other parties and among them
Sheriff Eye. who had the matter under
serious consideration. Runge was
TO others.
So much for what Downs said. He
told nothing which was particularly
new TO the public. he might have
gone much further. provided he is as
deep in the councils or his party as he
is supposed to be. For instance, he
might have said that the place of chief
of the ire department was offered TO
w. NJ. Bracket then retiring from the
head OF the police department. Brack-
eft refused the pIOneTed appointment
IOr various reasons. among the weight
lest of which were that Frank StetsOn
was his personal friend. and that Stet-
son was an efficient chief. il being
mistake TO remove him DOWnS.migh also
have stated that at least one alderman
fought StetSOn because the chief had
been instrumental in deprlYlng that
alderman OF considerable profitable
work. At least common report has It
that way. Downs might also have gone
further ana stated. provided he knew 1t.
that StetsOn's removal was one OF those
decisions arrived at IN the back room OF
Loves harness store. in order that king
caucus might rule absolutely IN the
new council. and IN order that the dan
gerOus Democratic minority might be
given no opportunity Tor Joining in the
work OF selecting heads OF city depart
mentS. As newspaper readers doubt
less remember. there were caucuses in
Vulnerable held by the Republican ma
jOrity i'll the council last fall before a
slate was finally framed that would
bear the strain OF several diScOTdant
elements. DR.. 5. S kilYingtOn.
VINO was a candidate for re-
election 10 the health commissioner
snip. mad friends among the Republican
a al - al y
drew Rinker, who desired to be re-
elected city engineer. was similarly sit
uated. StetsOn had both friends and
enemies among them too. But the Re
publican majority had. perfOrce. to unite
upon slate. else the ten Democratic
members OF the council might. by CO.
alescing with disgrUntied Republicans.
have word TO say in the distribution Of
the sDOllS. SteUSOn'S friends. were his
friends on the broad ground that he was
a good man for the place. that he was
an efficient officer that nothing would
be gained by his removal and much
might be lost. 1t must be confessed
that the friends and enemies of kilYing
ton and RInker, aldermen though
they be. representatives of the
power and dignity of the peO-
pie OF Minneapolis were governed in
some cases by petty political motives.
lr all resulted IN the defeat OF StetSOn.
the defeat Of kilYingtOn and the Teten-
ton Of RinkeT. This may seem like an
Client history. 1t is TO some, TO the men
concerned. but not to the most of the
people who are interested in the best
administration OF the city'S government.
Downs might have gone still further.
# he was at all cOuveTSant with local
politics lasJ tall and Intimately ac-
QualuJeda with the conduct of the mu-
nicipal campaign. lie might have said
that Frank SteJson. together with
all other heads of departments.
were assessed for the benefit or
the Republican campaign fund. and
that StetsOn peremptOTily refused TO
contribute one cent. emphaticallv
expressing 4 desire to be LETT alone ana
not dragged into political squabbles.
Downs would have but stated the plain
truth had he so testified. This action
on the part OF SteTsOn was. OF course. an