St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-30
REARDON MAKES REPLY.
CHARGES BURNS WITH COMPLETELY
WITH J0BBERS UNION
an ACCUSATION FLUNG BACK

ment-IIm STANDS At' ahU
Proposes TO Throw the County
Auditor in the Seup-Another
ChaDtcr in an Interesting Case.
The "iawing" match between the
bounty auditor and Assemblyman Rear
don still goes Oh with that emphatic
punctuation for which both men are
noted Mr. Reardon does not vince at
the $4,000 SANDER suit brought against
him by Mr.. Burns, but responds with
an answer of considerable length pre-
pared bv his attorney. Mr.. Reardon's
pOsiuun is one of mentor, Il crlllc OF
official position in the interest OF truth,
and to puffy the public service.
In reply to the complaint OF Mr..
Burns, which alleges that he was ac-
cused of securing large sum of money
from the jobbers' union III connection
with assessments for the purposes OF
taxation, Mr.. ReardOn replies by ac-
cuSing the county auditor OF unlaW-
fully attempting to raise the assessment
of certain wholesale merchants III the
spring and summer of 1898, to an extent
far beyond the just and legal amount
their property had been assessed. The
answer proceeds as follows:
The board of abatement, upon
hearing being had, proceeded to abate
the excessive assessment ana taxation
of said property and caused the same to
be reduced TO its proper amount. Dur
ing the pendency Of the proceedings the
county auditor wrOngtully refused to
perform his duties upon the board OF
abatement, and refused 10 certify 10 the
state auditor the action of the board, as
lie was required by law TO do.
The state auditor, before giving
his consent to the statement trans
mitted 10 him, asked the plaintiff
to refer the law questions arising upon
the petition 10 the county attorney OF
Ramsey county, which the plaintiff re
fused to do until the attention of the
board of abatement was called to the
refusal and the reference made by the
board. In this and in other proceedings
before the board of abatement the
plaintiff willfully undertook to ODstruct
the proceedings, and to annoy, haraSS
and Cypress the petitioners, and to pre-
vent them from obtaining the relief to
which they were entitled.
Further along in his answer Mr.Rear-
don says that he is informed and he
pending before the board of abatement,
the plaintiff entered into an agreement
with the jObbers' union by which the
plaintiff was to make his pr0misSory
notes in sum not greater than 81, 500.
in equal amounts, payable, respectively,
in from one to six months. so that each
OF said notes should become payable
cOnsecutiyeiy every month from and
during the period which the whole sum
evidenced 10y said notes proportionately
referred to the amount of the same, with
interest, ana these notes were to be i'll
dOrSed and caused 10 be negotiated by
the persons with whom the agreement
was made for the plaintiff at certain
banks in the city, the plaintiff prOmiS-
ing 10 pay the notes as they fell due.
These notes were equal in amount re-
SpecGyely to Oue-half the monthly salary
received by the plaintiff. In the case of
default in the payment of these notes
the plaintiff agreed that the transfer of
his salary might be recorded in
the office OF the county treasurer and
demand and receive his salary. Plaiut-
iii, pretending to act as county auditor,
iudOrsed upon the written agreement a
memorandum of its receipt and filing
by HIM as such county auditor in his
office. 1t was also agreed that until
plaintiff in the payment Of'Said sum the
agreement was to be kept by the other
parties thereto or the trustee named
therein and was not to be filed in the
office or the county treasurer or 10 APP
pear among the records of the auditors
office"
Mr.. Reardon's answer disclaims any
knowledge as 10 whether the notes were
paid or not, or whether the parties.
other than the plaintiff, have been sub
Jected to any loss, but asserts that after
this agreement was made there was a
change of front by the plaintiff without
apparent cause or reason. This change
was sudden. The course of conduct
toward the petitioners was changed
and the consent to the abate-
ment Of excessive taxes and
excessive valuation diligently followed
the petition. In June or July, after the
transaction had been closed, the con-
tents Of the agreements were publicly
announced throughout the community
by one of the parties thereto, and who
declared that the plaintiff had procured
the agreement with the corrupt de-
sign to annoy and harasS and to
obtain financial or other pecunary
advantage. The statement was COM
monty made known and understood in
the community, and has never been
cOntradicted or denied by the plaintiff.
The answer asserts that the statements
made by the defendant were in refer
ence to the agreement, and nothing was
stated but the truth, and with
out willful or improper purpose,
but with the design and intent
to purify the public service and
with the right to criticise the unlawful
and corrupt conduct of the plaintiff as
public officer. The exact words used
are not recalled by MIR. Reardon in re-
ferring to the transaction of the county
auditor. but he asserts that what he did
use they were nothing but the truth,
and he attempted 10 refer to the agree
ment us it actually occurred.