The Portland daily press., 1896-03-20
THE FACTS IN THE CASE.
Story of the Suit of Mr.. Alden j. Bletben
Against Mr.. Thomas Lowry.

Against MIR. Thomas Lowry.
To the Editor of the Press:
The Hon. John ]. Perry of your city.
and for 25 years warm personal friend
of myself, has kindly sent me clipping
from the PRESS of March 9th, under
the caption "Blethen Loses"-in which
certain statements are made calculated
to be somewhat detrimental in their
character, even though not SO intended,
and in response to which trust you
will give me space at your earliest op-
portunity. The article is SO full of errors
that ! feel that slight review of the
facts will not be out of place.
1t is true that went to Kansas City in
1SS0-not MISUNDERSTANDING of i'll
health. made SIS, 900 in four years in
the newspaper business in that city. In
August, 1884, I took an option on the
Minneapolis Tribune, desiring to remove
to Northern climate, because of the i'll
health of my wife and children, and
subsequently sold half interest in this
option to Mr.. Edwin B. Haskell of the
Boston Herald, who purchased it in be-
half of his son. Young Haskell and my
self took charge Of the Tribune on Nc
vember /, 1884, and remained together
until about June. 1883. when, having
acquired a majority interest in the Eve
ming Journal of this CITY, I sold my in
terest in the Tribune to young Haskell
and Mr.. 9. NJ. Palmer, then manager
Of the Northwestern Miller, and now
business manager for the Morning Jour-
nai-Mr. Hearst's new venture in New
York city.
| In August, 1888, sold majority in
terest in the Journal-all I owned-to
the elder Haskell of Boston, receiving
therefor approximately $780, O0), two
hundred thousand dollars, and having
accumulated $50, 900 worth of property in
addition, retired from Northwestern
journalism.
At the end of one year, June, 1889,
was introduced by Mr.. Thomas Lowry,
the street railway magnate of the North
west, to repurchase the Tribune for the
purpose of aiding that gentleman in
acquiring the sole ownership of all the
street railway franchises in Minneap oils
and st. Paul. put one hundred thou
sand dollars ($loO. 0O0) into the venture.
On November 80, 1889, great fire de-
stroyed the entire Tribune property,
which was insuffioiently insured, by
reason of being an alleged s"flre proof
building, and in the course of tina recon-
struction Of newspaper plant and the
erection of an hundred thousand dollar
building. expended all told about $780,
900 more
On the first of March, 1891, Mr.. Lowry
the newspaper and secured property
which today is stocked for. twenty mil
lions, bonded for ten millions, carries a
floating debt of one million, and paid
six per cent on an investment of sixteen
millions in 1895, desired to transfer the
property to other parties-largely be-
cause he felt that his connection there
with was hurtful to the paper, while it
could be no longer useful to him.
The testimony in the case to which
you refer-my suit against Lowry for one
hundred thousand dollars-showed that
Lowry undertook to reimburse me for
my Investment in case would turn the
property all over to him then and there,
which I did.
The testimony also showed that after
Mr. Lowry had retained the property
seven months ho sold it to Murphy and
Pierce, subject to an inoumbrance of
$4l7, 600, and that those men were willing
to take the property even with that debt
upon 1t, thereby showing that it's value
was fully equal to four hundred and fifty
thousand dollars, the value claimed by
me. Lowry refusing to keep his agree
ment with me- which was verbal, [ I'm.
dertook to obtain from him statements
in writing showing the actual situation
and the facts connected with the transfer
of the paper and the property, and was
SO successful that my attorneys felt war
ranted in bringing suit in the spring
of 1893.
Owing to the breaking out of the panic
IN May, 1898, the action was deferred
until after the panic was completely
over, final service being made in Febru-
ary, 1895. The case was tried before
"struck jury"-an institution wholly
peculiar to the West and where defen-
dant in this state can secure at least sew.
eral friends upon the jury in spite of all
efforts to the contrary. In spite of this
law AoNCvOh, 0luOI Uribl Oh If Gays,
the jury voted to to award me the
full amount of my claim.
The testimony WAS such that the jury
had right to return verdict of about
60 per cent of the claim, owing to the
fact of certain advances made by Lowry,
and which they desired to deduct But
the presiding judge suddenly instructed
the jury that they must find "the full
amount claimed" by the plaintiff, or else
their verdict must be for the defendant
From the foregoing you will perceive
that the verdict rendered was practically
one directed by the court, although the
judge had refused to grant a motion for
dismissal at the close of the plaintiff
testimony. The testimony was quite as
clear with regard to the credits to which
defendant was entitled, as it was with
reference to the contract itself Hence,
my attorneys claim that the instruction
of the conrt was wholly erroneous, and
under motion for new trial have TAX
On the same to the Supreme Court of the
state, where they have the utmost con-
fidenoe that the judges charge will be
reversed.
trust that you will exercise your
usual fairness in publishing the actual
facts that the great number of personal
friends whom l have in your field of
may know exactly what &C.