The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1892-09-16
TRUTH ABOUT IT.
Knute Nelson Has Never Been
a Railroad Attorney,
But Has Had Many Legal Cases
Against Railroads.
Official Letters That Tell the
Truth About This Matter.

No sooner had the people selected
Knute Nelson as their candidate for gov
2rnor 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 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
meeting 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 Falls Journal secured from Mr..
Nelson the correspondence, and pub
lished it. 1t 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 railroad
attorney. The following is the CORES
pondence referred to:
ALEXANDRIA, Mimi, May 16, 1892.
Hon. Kittel Halvorsen:
Dear Sir-I 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, 1884, 40.
Mary Danelke, widow of John Danelke, VS..
st. Paul. Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway
Company, involving nw4, s., l3l, 80.
Lars H. Stennen vs. Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company, involving lots and 2 and seq
of nw4, ID l2S, So.
Hugh McCallum W.. Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company, involving nw4 of ne4, neA of
nw14 and lot l in II, 13l, 81.
Lars c. Kolkind VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
AMI Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving ne4
of swA and nwA of se4, 81, 49,, A.
Peder p. Thunie VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway company, involving
neA of swA and nw4 of seA and lot 2 in ID.
LIS, Al
John K. Lillethun VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Railway Company, involving lot 5, in q,
l35, 49,
Conrad Meister VS.. ST. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving s1s
of nw14, l, 129, 81.
Anders Larson VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving s16
of seq, 81, l2S, IS.
James Olson Vs. Hastings and Dakota Rail-
way Company, involving lot and neA of sw4
and nf of se4 and lots 2,3 and 4and seA H. liz AZ
Gustaf Anderson VS.. Northern Pacific Rail-
way Company, involving swA of neA and seq
of nwA and WIZ Of seq, l, 129, SO.
Thomas Kesiik VS.. st. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Railway Company and North
ern Pacific Railway Company, involving the
neA 7, 13O, 36.
John Trexler vs.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company, involving nwA of
sw4, q, 129, So.
Avis Pfeffer VS.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company, involving swA seA
and s1a sw14 Fl, l-9, SO.
Wenzel Zimal VS.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company. involving VIZ nw14,
81, 129 G6.
John Slosser VS.. Northern Pacific Railway
Company and st. Paul, Minneapolis and Man
itoba Railway Company; involving nw4 of
neA and ne4 of sw14, 81 129, %. Yours truly,
L KNUTE NELSON.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,, U. S.
n (