St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-23
ASKS A HEARING.
Howard Says His Own Party Pa
perS Will Not Grant
Him.
He Has Served Legal Notice for
Eetracticn on the Pioneer
Press.
To the Editor of the Globe

To the Editor of the Globe
As Il fair ana honest political opDo-
nent you will, feel assured accord to
me the privilege of hearing before the
bar of public opinion. Through no
fault of mine, but as one of the conse-
qnences of the mafgnancy of those
whose personal enmity have enjoyed
for the period of an entire generation. l
am denied such hearing through the
columns of the Republican press. Forty
years of residence IN this community
does not appear to the conductors of
that press to warrant the extension to
me of privilege which is not ordinarily
denied to common criminal.
have waited till the Pioneer Press
and its representatives had made en-
tirely plain their long-stored ill-will
and had exhausted all the sources from
which they have drawn their merciless
calumnies before asking you to enable
the people to judge intelligently be-
tween them and me.
In statement and inuendo alike l hope
to show that they sustain with refer
ence to me well-earned reputati on as
the aSsallants of public and private
character.
1t is charged against me, among other
things. that twenty years ago, while
police justice, | was impeached and re-
moved from Office for malfeasance. Had
this Intentionally ambiguous statement
stood alone, it might not admit of the
Interpretation which it was designed
should be given to it by the people; but,
accompanied. as it is, by the Sc
quent remark that l now seek SUP
port 'for more responsible Of
flee than that of police JUSTICE"
the intended Inference plainly is
that l was 'impeached and
removed as police justice. Such an
imputation is utterly false and ground
appointment, and afterwards 10y election,
from 1869 to 1872 inclusive, and those
who were then and still are residents of
this city Will bear testimony to the gen
eral conviction which prevailed that the
administration of that Office during that
| period was not characterized by either
| lack of fearlesSneSS or of imDartiality.
l withdrew from the Office at the eX-
piratiOn of my term, followed by the
encOmiums and good will of the COM
munitv.
| shall take occasion hereafter. with
your permission. to deal with the real
charge which is thus covertly made
the occasion Of cowardly and unwar-
| ranted assault. For the present | may
be permitted to pass to another equally
baseless fabric of the malice of my as
saiIants. 1t is expressed by them in
their newspaper as follows:
"Some years ago Mr.. Howard was indicted
| for embezzlement. 1t was proved that as the
agent of a nonresident he had sold some
land for a sum of money much larger than
he had reported to his principal as the price
at which he scld it, and that he had appro:
| prated the difference, a considerable sum OF
| money, to his own USE"
Every statement contained in this
sentence but one is false, ana is capable
of disproof by legal evidence-a fact
which its authors will soon be forced to
admit to their cost in open court.
was indicted for embeZZle ment, it is
true. And it is true, TOO, that | was
honorabIy discharged after full hear
ing on the merits of the accusation
The facts OF the controversy were laid
fully before the court and jury, and
without delay or hesitation verdict
was given of mot guilty."
1t is false in fact and intent that
had sold land as agent for a nOn-resi-
dent, etc. as charged above. l sold nc
land whatever on that occasion, and
therefore could have made no report
false or otherwise, to my principal.
had bought land, but it was not for 6
nonresident. A controversy arose con-
corning commissions which gave my
enemies an opportunity which they haC
long sought. Among those enemie:
was Frederick Driscoll ST., business
manager and part proprietor of the Pho
neer Press. Mr.. Driscoll was member
of the grand jury which indicted me
and his official action had come close
upon threat which he had publicly
made while so acting as grand juror =
that he would get square with me.
The ingenuity which is displayed in
the framing of the charge is only
eQualed by the recklessness of it:
authors. which carries them to the
length of adding: He % got clear OF
the technical point that the particular
form of robbery of which he had beer
guilty was technically breach OF trus
and not embeZZlement." Could ma
licious and reckless falsehood 20 farther
Let the response of an honorable MAI
bear witness. Here is letter writer
OH the subject within few days by th'
Hon. E. q. Rogers:
Law Offices of Edward G. Rogers, st. Paul
Oct. Is, 1S92-Thomas Howard, Esq--My Dea
Sir:At your request will say that was count
attorney during your trial for embezziemen
in 1879. You were not acquitted of thu
charge ON q technically, as has been allege'
in the newspapers, but were declared no
guilty by fair aud impartial jury, after a.
exhaustive trial on the facts as presented t
them ana under the charge of the court
Hon. Westcott Wilkin the district judge. pre-
siding 1t is no more than fair and right tina
the exact truth be stated. Yours very truly
E. G. ROGERS.
If this does not suffice to carry con
viction to the mind of even my bitteres
enemy, let me beg of him that he vii
examine the judgment roll at presen