The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1898-08-05

GU luUO' WI. ~ HdU luolSuCu UldO uC
had right to talk, and said that the
malice that had been shown by the
National Citizens bank at the objec.
tion raised to Mr. Clark was sufficient
cause to not appoint him.
Mr.. Cray replied that he had not
spoken because of the objection to
Mr.. Clark, but because Of the insult
cast upon the National Citizens bank.
Judge Severance declared that no
one had suggested Mr.. Clark's name
to him, but that it was his own sug-
gestion.
Mr.. Plymat mentioned the names
of John R. Thomas, J. B. Richards
and G.. A. Lewis, who would be salts
factory to him if appointed assignee.
Mr.. Hughes made the point that no
one suggested by'any of the attorneys
ought to be considered, but that the
court should be left to make his own
choice.
The court said that he expected
that If the present assignee is behind
and not performing his duties salts
factorily, the new assignee would
take the steps proper to such case.
Mr.. Pau arose to speak, but several
of the attorneys demanded to know
who he represented. Mr.. Pfau said
that he represented the First Ma
tional bank. He proceeded without
further interruption and said that
it was set up in the petition that
funds had been traudulently collected,
and no answer to this had been made.
Because of the relations of his attor-
neys in the past, they cannot very
we'll take active steps against
him. 1t was desired only
to have fair man appointed and he
was willing to trust the court in this
matter. He did not think that the
objection made by Mr.. Schwartz's at
torneys should have more weight than
their suggestion had received. Modes
ty ought to cause them to keep still
now. They should admit that their
man was failure and let the others
have chance. Everyone who knows
Mr.. Clark will concede that he is a fit
man, unless he is in some way con-
nected with some Of the creditors so
as to incapacitate him. Mr.. Pau did
not think that Mr.. Clark would favor
either bank. He was not connected
with the case in any way and was not
a creditor. Mr.. Pau could not see
what objection Mr.. Schwartz's attor-
neys could raise to Mr.. Clark unless it
was that the latter might not choose
them as his attorneys in the case.
He did not think that Mr.. Clark
would change the attorneys while a
case was pending in the courts.
The court said that they were in a
bad predicament. Mr.. Schwartz
ought to be removed and probably
would be called upon to account to a
new assignee. He had unofficial in
formation to this effect whether Mr..
Schwartz could make an accounting,
he did not know. The reason why he
had suggested Mr.. Clark was because
nobody had suggested him, and
neither side could say that the other
had suggested him. He knew Mr..
Clark to be honest and upright and
did not believe that he could be
turned aside from what was right to
favor any interest. There was a
suit pending by the assignee
against the National Citizens
bank, and it had been appealed. He
believed that the new assignee would
retain the present attorneys and
would not do anything to interrupt
any proceedings that have been COM
menced. He knew that Mr.. Clark
was competent.
Mr., Plymat said that he had no OBJ
lection to Mr.. Clark except that the
banks want him.
Both Mr.. Cray and the court denied
that the banks had suggested Mr..
Clark's appointment.
Mr.. Plymat was asked who he re-
presented. and he replied that he re-
presented Mr.. Schwartz.
Mr.. Cray asked whether Mr..
Schwartz was attempting to name his
own successor. He had seen letter
written by Mr.. Schwartz in which the
latter says that he has no money.
Mr.. Metcalf observed that the bond
company expects the new assignee to
do his duty.
Mr.. Cannon said that Mr.. Schwartz
would make an accounting within ten
days and that there would be no
necessity for any such proceedingssas
had been limited at.
The court enquired again in regard
to the amount of the bond, aud Mr..
Metcalf said that $4,000 would te an
ample bond. The only thing visible
was q suit in the supreme court,
which is not very tangible evidence.
The court said that he desired to
see whether Mr.. Clark would serve