The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1893-01-13
WHO FALSIFIED ?? "

w f1O lDb
The FREE Press has no desire TO
prolong an improbable discussion, out
it feels called upon to notice an ar
ticle under the above headlines which
appeared inMondayevening' s RecaeW.l III
contains a statement signed by {. A.
Chapman, giving an account OF his
plan for the publication of the Board
of Trade report. Mr.. Chapman says
that "he supposed" that the FREE
PRESS representative understood the
bargain THAT both papers were to pup
lish the report on Monday. Upon
the strength of this the Recleac mas
the cheek to say: with this we sub
nit to the public to decide the ques-
+ion of yeracity that has been raised
in this matter" Who raised ques-
fion of yeracity? Mr.. Chapman does
not, and never has that we know OF,
claimed that the FREE PRESS or us
commemorative has told anything but
the truth. The Board of Trade, which
is the only party interested. dlrectly
has certainly never troubled itself
ahout the matter. 1t is, then, lett
for the Rerie,U to raise this allegeo
ouestion of yeracity. AS Mr.. Chap
man does not claim that anyone 1alsl-
fed himself, whom is this question
of yeracity" between? The Recieac in
it's hatred and jealousy OF the FREE
PRESS and everyone connected WIN
it. has imagined this question OF YER
acity. So far as Mr.. Soaring, whose
name has been dragged into the affair
much against his inclination, is con-
cerned. he defies the ReUieaC or any
Derson to come out sQuarely and say
that ne has misstated the truth
in the slightest degree in saying that
there was no understanding to which
he was knowingly party that the re-
mort should not be published until
Monday. And furthermore, ne de-
clares that whoever says OF inslnuates
that he has stated that which was
not true is a lying scOundrel.
In the Revieoo's report of the Board
of Trade proceedings, in giving MI.
Chapman's statement regarding the
publication of the report before it had
been read to the Board, Mr.. Chapman
is made to say that an arrangement
for the publication of the report was
made with "Mr. Soaring. with the
EXPRESS understanding that it was not
to appear in print until after 1t had
been presented to the Board OF Trade.
Mr.. Soaring received his copy and
rushed it into print, claiming after
wards that he misunderstood the ar
rangement.n The report then says:
''Mr. Soaring was present and admit
ted that he was to blame in the mat
ter and did not want the Board to at
tach any blame to Mr.. Chapman for
it," This is a sample of the unfair
ness of the RecieaC in dealing with the
question. Had the Revieac reporter
given an accurate account OF the re-
marks made by both parties.a very dit
ferent aspect would have been given
to the matter in the report. MI. Scar
ing. for instance, did not admit That
he was to blame," but denied that he
was, explaining his understanding of
Mr.. Chapman's wishes. But although
Mr.. Chapman was at fault in not MAX
ing clear his wishes, still Mr.. Soaring,
in conciliatory spirit, was willing to
accept the blame for the appearance
of the report in print before it had
been read to the Board rather than
that the Board should blame Mr..
Chapman. He thought that he was
making kindly offer in this, instead
of admitting that he was to blame
in the matter" But the Board found
no fault with Mr.. Chapman, or with
the FREE PRESS for giving out the
report four days before it came out in
the sleepy Recieao. 1t is the soreness
at being so badly ''scooped," rather
than any natural abhorrance of
''broken faith," that causes the spite.
full nagging INDUCED in by the Rerieac.
1t is sincerely to be hoped, out of
compassion for the public, that this
matter may be allowed to drop.