The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-19
BLANCHARD ON THE STAND.
Wrote the Editorial without Con-
sGlting Haskell.

In the Haskell libel suit yesterday morning
Samuel Hill was again questioned regarding
ms charge OF biackmail against Mr.. Haskell.
1886. "
Questioned by Mr.. Flannery, the witness
swore that there had never been any offers
for the West Pullman bonds except the one
presented to the court
Did the Minneapolis Trust company sell
to itself any bonds for 10 cents ON the dol
lar or to any of it's agents."
No sir"
Did the Minneapolis Trust company make
Sl300N by this transaction"
mo, SIR
action?'; u '''i9
mo, SIR
John Blanchard, editorial writer on The
Times, was sworn and was questioned by
Mr.: Jackson He had held his position since
legged lfbelous editorial and wrote 1t without
any consultation with anyone. Mr. Haskell
was not in the building at the time he sent
peared.
Explain why you wrote it,"
Il had been interested In the actions of
the trust company since February, 1896 when
the La Sale National bank filed an afidavit.
Since that time l watched the proceedings
and they were always very damaging
thought when this Hart affidavit was handed
me that the time had come for me to make
exposure of the whole matter There had
been great many failures and embezzIe-
ments, l think about twenty, and many poor
people had their earnings swept away. 1 was
informed that this company had been engaged
In many questionable transactions
i move that the last assertion be stricken
out" said Judge Belden.
III let that stand" replied the court
All l care to say for myself is said the
witness, that my mind had been prepared
for tho Hart affidavit by information brought
In by a competent member of The Times staff
who had been sent out for that purpose"
Did you have any evil purpose or NAL
evolent feeling toward the Minneapolis Trust
company when you wrote it?"
-. Did you know at the time who the par
ties were who were responsible for the ac-
ton OF the company"
Only Mr.. Hill and Mr. HambIin"
The witness swore that there was no con-
sultation with Mr.. Haskell with reference
to the Hart affidavit, and none to whether
there should be an editorial or not. Relating
to the conversation with P. B. Winston the
witness insisted that he had dictated a MEMO
randum of that conversation to a stenograph-
er an hour after it transpired. Mr.. Flannery
objected to the impeachment of their own
witness but the court allowed the inquiry.
but only On the point where Mr.. Winston
said his conversation related to the attitude
of The Times in the consolidation scheme
Don't you think when you wrote these
words Quoting from the article) that you
We're injuring these mem"
1T would be injuring an innocent man {"
was the reply.
What knowledge did you have of the evil
dence in court?''
II followed it, but I can't say now what
1t was. l remembered the matter year be-
fore Of the La Sale National bank / didn't
think it was square. | can't give Won anv
particulars of what had heard. l was salts
fled that the comment was justified"
The witness was questioned about each
item Of the editorial, and asserted that each
In his opinion, was a statement of fact
What evidence had you of a conspiracy
between these officers of the trust company %
1T was evident. What l meant was that
70 troy nafin had
more than one."
What evidence had you?"
well, l was sure the thing took place
and there must have been more than one in
Ibid you know that these men conspired
together and divided $4,000 among them?"
II knew one of them got some bonds"
Ibid you read the evidence as to where
those bonds came from %
mo, sir; / did not"
The witness was given the name of every
one who testified in the case and could not
say that he had read any of their evidence
He had no evidence that the trust company
got any of the bonds, but he drew his de-
auctions from what he had learned He never
felt called upon to make any inquiries as to
who the men were whom he was about to
accuse. He didn't care if it was So or So
the paper book and showed that the Hart
affidavit had not given the portion of MT.
Eale's evidence, which would be in favor Of
the the trust company The witness thought
ceived an offer of 60 cents on the dollar for
the bonds when in the paper book it was
shown that Mr.. Hale said he did not
did you understand that all Mr. Hale's
evidence was given in the Hart afidavit?''
There was enough to satisfy me-
The witness admitted that he had accepted
the evidence in the Hart affidavit as truth.
and If he had read such evidence as Mr..
Flannery read to him he would have thought
that it would need some inquiry before
he would accept it truth.
did you think the good name of these
men connected with the trust company was
entitled to any consideration whatever?'
II didn't consider that matter at ALL /
didn't know who they were.''
Would you consider that man was in
Turing you If he charged you with stealing
mot If 1 stole it-of course it would injure
me-yes."
Didn't you know that the publication of
that editorial would injure the Minneapolis
Trust company"
YES of course"
The witness explained that the reason he
charged that the company sold the bonds
to itself was because Mr. Hamblin had Sc
cured them. The reason he thought the trust
company had made $3.50, 900 by the sale was
because that a problem in subtraction,
this amount being the difference between 60
cents and 10 cents on the dollar.
Court adjourned until this morning at 10
o'clock.