The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1892-09-08
TRUTH : ABOUT IT.
Knute Nelson Has Never Been
q Railroad Attorney,
But Has Had Many Legal Cases
Against Railroads.
Official Letters That Tell the
Truth About This Matter.

Knute Nelson as their candidate for gov
ernor than the Donnelly party and the
Democrats began-for want of any other
thing to say against him-to charge him
with being a railroad attorney. This
was caught up by all the little Demo-
cratic and Peoples party papers and
heralded all over the state. Now Mr..
Nelson is not q rash man. He never
goes off half cooked. He got all ready
and last week when he was at St. Paul
attending the state central committee
bleeting a newspaper reporter asked him
about the charge. For the benefit of
those who do not want to know the
truth, but will have to know it, The
Fergus Fails Journal secured from Mr..
Nelson the correspondence, and pub
lished it. It speaks for itself, and we
do not believe that we will hear any,
thing more from Donnelly or the Demo-
Gratis about Mr.. Nelson being a railroad
attorney. The following is the CORES
pondence referred to:
ALEXANDRIA, Mimi, May 16, 1892.
Hon. Kittel Halvorsen:
Dear SRI have the following land
cases in which I am attorney for the
settlers against the railroad companies
pending in the interior department.
They seem to move along very slowly.
Some of them have been pending for a
long time and my clients are growing
restless at the delay. Will you kindly
see the secretary of the interior and as
certain from him the status of these
cases, and what prospect there is for an
early consideration of the same. The
titles of the cases are as follows:
Ole Halverson VS.. St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba Railway Company, involving nwA.
IL, 1874, As.
Mary Danelke widow of John Danelke, vs..
St. Paul, Minneapolis AMI Manitoba Railway
Company, involving nwA, 81, l3l, 80.
Lars H. Stennen VS.. Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company. involving lots and and sen
of nwA. ID l2S, IS.
Hugh McCallum Vs. Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company. involving nwA of neA, neA Of
nwA and lot in n, 13l, 81.
Lars G. Kolkind vs.. St. Paul, Minneapolis
an Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Hallway Company, involving neA
Of swA and nwA of seA, 81, 49, A.
Peder P. Thunie vs.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway company, involving
neA Of swA and nwA of SEA and lot in b.
49, Al.
John X. Lillethun vs.. St. Paul. Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Railway Company, involving lot s, in II,
135, 43.
Conrad Meister vs.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving 81
of nw4,1, 129, 81.
Anders Larson vs.. St. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving 81
of seA, 81, l 8, s..
James Olson vs.. Hastings and Dakota Rail-
way Company, involving lot and neA of swI
and M of seq and lots 3 and Land seA H. AZ
! Gustaf Anderson vs.. Northern Pacific Rail-
| way Company, involving swA of ne4 aud seq
of nwA and WIZ of seq, l. lZ9, 36.
Thomas Kesiik vs. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving the
neA Z, 13l, sc.
John Trexler vs.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
| itoba Railway Company, involving nwN of
| swA, q, 129, So.
Avis Pfeffer VS.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company, involving swA seA
and So swA, 81, 10, 81.
| Wenzel Zimal vs.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company. involving wa nw14,
II, 12J, Is.
John Slosser vs.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man.
itoba Railway Company; involving nwA of
neA and neA of swA, q, l29, oe. Yours truly,
| KNUTE NELSON.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
| WASHINGTON DC Nav % 800 {