The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-12
Reber Takes Exception to James
Browns Testimony.
HIS SIDE OF THE CASE
How the Affair Was Settled-Mr. Brown
Insists That His Testimony Given
Before Examiner Blake Is
Essentially Correct.


which Frank Reber. formerly of this
city. but now of Gem, Idaho. does not
agree Mr.. Reber writes as follows to
the Standard:
Some days ago there appeared in
the Standard what purported to be the
testimony of James Brown before the
United States examiner in the Chinese
boycott case. In this testimony, in re-
ferring to the boycott that existed on
the opera house. something more than
a year ago, Brown makes a statement
in reference to me as to the money
transaction in the settlement of the
same.
THE facts in reference to same are
this. viz: That when arbitration and
everything else in this matter failed
and the opera company that was To
appear refused to go to Anaconda to
play and refused to play in boycotted
house, the manager of the opera house
urgently appealed to have another eff
fort made to have the boycott lifted
for the evening of Dec IL, 1896. 50 as
not to be involved In a suit for breach
of contract with the opera company
management that was to appear that
evening. During the noon hour a meet
ing was held with the trades council
committee and everything was ar
ranged for the lifting of the boycott
with the exception of the indemnity for
the expense incurred by the council in
prosecuting the boycott. which it was
claimed amounted to 5000. The COM
mittee insisted upon this being put up
in cash. To guarantee that this cash
would be paid that evening and so that
preparations could be made (for the
opera company refused to play in a
bnycotted house and refused to go to
Anaconda and perform there) and due
M
on the opera house would be raised that
evening, the check that Brown refers
to was executed to an individual. not
to be used. but as a guarantee of good
faith that before the full announce
ment of the boycott being raised would
be made. that the 5000 in cash would be
turned over to the committee before
y. m. of Dec. IL, 1896. After this was
done | did remark to Brown after
coming away. that If the party that
had practically assured the payment of
this expense would not come to time
with the money. ] would have to get
some money and deposit il next day,
in addition to what was in the bank,
to cover the full amount of the check.
Between or p m. of the same day
Brown came to me and said he had
the 5000 cash and Immediately we
hunted up the committee, and some
time after D. m. Brown paid the cash
money and l took the check out of
escrow, and due announcement of the
lifting of the boycott was made The
following day | got 500 from John Ma
guire as part payment on the 5000 and
paid the same to Brown--Brown fur
Their states that he has my check for
800 for the other 500. In this he liz
simply mistaken, for he has no such
check in his possession. but what he
probably does have is a receipt for
5000 from the party to whom he paid
the money to cover the expense of con-
Quoting the boycott.
Now, the statement. as per evil
denee of Brown. would place me in the
attitude of a stupid fool. | hardly
think ] fully size up to this standard,
although in such matters | have been
a good deal of an ass in the past, for
somehow or other / would get inviegled
into such affairs and in truth to state,
in this case. it was the persuasive elo-
quence of Brown. who first came after
me, that interested me in this mat
ter.
This is but one of the sidelights on
opera house boycott, and regret the
necessity of reference to the same
The above letter was shown TO Mr.
Brown yesterday and he answered it
as follows:
Frank Reber does not seem pleased
United States Examiner Blake in ref
erence to the boycott of the Murray
opera house. | can perceive no rea-
son why Frank should offer an objec-
ton to anything in the testimony. for
1t contained the whole truth With per-
haps the exception of the check, which
possibly may have been a receipt and
which I have attempted to locate |
interested Mr.. Reber in my endeavor to
raise the boycott for the reason I be-
lieved 1t an imposition. ] never would
have paid the 5000 myself. because |
believed il was extortion, and if Frank
had not volunteered and given his
check for the amount with the under
standing it would not be presented for
payment until p. m of the following
day, ! would never have given up a
cent and would not even then. had |
not been informed by Frank that he did
not have the money to his credit in the
Hoge. DAILY & co. bank in Anaconda
to meet the check with. Had Frank re-
fused to put up his check. the boy
cotters would have played the game to
the full limit as far as ! was con-
cerned for | never would have put UP
a cent, and did not even then. SO far
as the hoycotters We're concerned. but
TO save Reber the humiliation af hav-
ing his paper returned to him dis
honored
80 FAR as the opera house boycott is
concerned. II does not change the fact
that | am out an even 500. not a cent
of which has been paid. and what APP
pears to bother me the most is. which
one of us Is the greater ass of the two.
Frank to give his personal check for
the money. or | myself for rustIing like
the devil to get the money 10 virtually
whirl a the birds. Bayeotts, So far as
] myself am concerned. are a mighty
expensive luxury, and ii is good rea-
son why | did not want to adjust the
race track dispute. The opera house
extortion was too expensive
Great values in up-to-dat. hats. 81 30.
parl CT a1atbfa,.