The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1901-11-08
A COMMUNICATION.
Editor Free Press /.

4
sion the writer conveys is SO paplably
misleading and biased that it would
warrant in anyone, knowing the facts
of the case, the belief that the writer
thereof has, for reasons best known to
himself, permitted his preJudices and
wishes to obscure his real Judgment
and the facts.
| believe that it is the province of
newspaper to present the facts relat-
| ing TO matters of this kind, and 1t is
for the purpose of setting our case
fairly and squarely before the public
in its proper light that l beg to be al
lowed space in your columns. wherein l
may point our your error and place
you In possession of the facts, so that
you may be in position to pass Impair
tial Judgment, in case the article mere
In mentioned was not intended to mis-
lead, and if it is your desire, to treat
either side fairly and squarely on It's
merits
The article referred to states that an
| Injunction obtained by the Mankato
Mills company against the g., M. q
st. P. railway is dissolved, and pro-
nounces it victory for the railroad,
and the article is written in self
congratulatory style as though Justice
had at last prevailed to right public
wrong, let the public rejoice, ETC. or
In other words, that the Mills COM
pany have simply been obstructionists
to public improvement and progress
with no right or justice back of them.
The same evening the Review, in
sharp contrast to the Press, prints
mention of the fact that the inlunc-
ton was granted, without undue COM
ment thereon. 1t is only necessary to
read the decision of the judge to learn
that temporary injunction was
granted in connection with our undls-
| puted property, which was all the
court had a right to grant before title
to balance of the property In question
was adjudicated by the court. In other
words, the injunction went as far as 1t
rightly could In the first place, a
temporary restraining order was OBJ
tanned, and the question of an inJunc-
ton was not even passed upon until
Friday last So how could the injunc-
ton (2) be dissolved in any event?
You say the Milwaukee road has the
right to use Maple street. That was
never disputed by us, as it was not the
point in question. Next, you proceed
to state that the road is allowed to go
onto the property disputed by Page.
| The road was on that property before
we applied to the court, and the court
has not passed on the title to that pro-
perty in its recent decision, all disput-
ed property having been left out OF
| the question for final settlement here
after.
Your article further states that the
railroad company does not need our
land, and then goes on to say that it
/ will proceed to condemn part of our
lots 1, and 3. If they don't need
them, why should they bother about
condemning them2 AS to the merits
of the case, | wish to say, we propose
! to defend our rights against the arbi-
trary action of the Milwaukee road at
every point. We are merely defending
our property, which has been set aside
for manufacturing purposes, against
the high handed grab all'' policy of
| that road, and against the damage to
US that will inevitably result if the
road is built as originally intended.
We will fight for our rights to finish
| if forced to- We want what we are
entitled to and no more, in spite OF
the inference from certain articles
in the press that we are delaying
and obstructing the operations of a
great corporation, and incidentally
| postponing the benefits to be derived
| by the people at large from the munif-
cence of the great Milwaukee road.
That road has endeavored to create
s. mpathy for itself and prejudice
against us by giving to the news
papers, questionable Information, and
by questionable practices. At the last
moment, they succeeded in inducing
one Page, who for some years, has oc-
cupied by permission, a part of our
property as barnyard. to contract
with them to sell not only the barn
yard, of which he is the alleged owner,
but property that he was never on,
, and which was made by US by filing
in hog with refuse from our boiler
room, and which was occupied always
by us and intended by US for building
purposes. In this way, by resorting to
mere trick, they succeeded in max
ing disputed property of tract that
we have occupied for twenty years,
i which was never disputed or claimed
before and never would have been,
had it not been at the suggestion of
this great corporation in order to
make it disputed property, and thus,
not within the province of the court,
| to pass upon in injunction proceed
ings which left it out of these pro-
ceedings, thereby saving the railroad
the time necessary to condemn it. We
have the same right to defend it as we
have to defend our homes against for
| chile intrusion, and purpose to defend
! it, We have not DISTRACTED the rail-
road. We would rather have the. pro-
perty itself for our purpose than the
| reasonable amount we asked for it,
and which we made very reasonable
to avoid any possible imputation of
| fixing an extortionate price for the
purpose of holding them up" We
| would rather have the property as it
stands today than sum twice as large
as the amount asked. And yet, these
| people, by bluff and buster. resort to
all kinds of subterfuges to attempt to
make it appear less valuable and with
! the hope of saving few hundred dol
lars. They have had months to secure
this property in, yet they never came
near us. If there is delay at the last
moment, they have themselves only to
blame, and the public cannot, in JUS
tice, attribute to us a desire to hold
them up. If they deprive us of what
we consider the most valuable property
we have for additions to our plant.
the same being adjacent to our engine
room, they must pay for it. For the
purpose of keeping out other railroads,
they have established an unnecessary
grade of over four feet right against
our wall, cutting off the road around
our plant and leaving us in depres
sion between their proposed track and
the Omaha If deprived of this pro-
perty, we will likely be compelled to