The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-05-20
Reiterated That No Money Was Fur
nished BY Railroad Magnate.
ST. Cloud Man Is Entirely Cleared of
Charges Made BY Dunn.
Formal Statement Issued BY Mr.. Col
Inns and 1t Is Explicit.
From The Minneapolis Journal. !

~ So'SiAhS lAC lCSSho oSOdSr
upon him by R. C. DunA, and giving il
detail the correspondence between him
self and James j. Hill, president of the
Great Northern railway.
Mr.. Dunn's managers had copies of tn,
correspondence, and they had limited thai
Judge Collins would never make it pub
lie, though it is difficult to see why
Mr.. Hills first letter was evasive, but
the second one clears Judge Collins en-
tirely of the charges made, and leaves
Mr.. Dunn ''up in the air."
Judge Collins statement is as fol
lows:
During my residence of fifty years in
Minnesota never before have l been call
ed upon to publicly resent an attack
upon my personal character. l cannot
allow the recent attack of Mr.. Dunn to
go unnoticed. He has right to his own
views upon political questions, and he
may choose his political associates, but
he has no right to defame others who
differ with him and his friends upon
these questions. judge him from his
own language and acts"
Dunn and the Merger.
In the Pioneer Press of Jan. 3, 1902
he is quoted as saying, concerning the
railroad merger, then the subject of heat
ed discussion in this state: Il believe
that the fight against Mr.. Hill is inspir-
ed by rival railway companies, and 1 am
heartily out of sympathy with it be-
cause of this belief" Mr.. Dunn has new
er announced change of mind upon this
subject. In fact a short time since he
caused this statement that he stood
by it, and in his interview with Mr.. Hill
published in the Dispatch of the 18th
inst, the latter, speaking of the present
campaign, assured Mr.. Dunn that he had
that the figures to be obtained at the
office might help Bob" Because many
persons including myself, have recognized
and seen fit to refer to this we'll known
relationship and intimacy between these
gentlemen-which intimacy and exchange
of sympathy Mr.. Dunn now publicly ad-
mits-he found provocation in speech
at Minneapolis on May 6 to charge
'calmly and deliberately" that in 1894,
when candidate for reelection to the
supreme bench l solicited and secured
the support of James j. Hill to the eX-
tent of contribution of from $4,000 to
100000 to my campaign fund. This
was a direct charge that l had solicited
from Mr.. Hill the large sum of money
mentioned for my personal use. In a
letter dated May Z, asked Mr. Dunn if
he had used this language, but to this
letter l have received no reply, and
note from statements in the public press
that none will be made. Knowing the
utter falsity of this charge, and believ.
ing that Mr. Hill would refuse to father
it, l wrote to him, asking the following
questions:
Questions Put to Hill.
First-Did you contribute any sum
whatsoever to my campaign fund when ]
was candidate against the Hon. John
Willis, or have you ever contributed to
that fund in any other campaign? If
so, when, where, how much, and to
whom was the money paid?
Second-Did l ever solicit or receive
from you, or from anyone connected with
you in business or otherwise, any money
whatsoever for campaign purposes. II
SO, when, where, how much, and to whom
was the money paid? Omitting the ad-
dress, Mr.. Hills reply was a follows:
Dear Sir: Your letter of even date
was duly received. As same is rather
ambiguous, would like to hear from
you further as to how for you wish me
to 60 into details in connection with the
matter referred to therein. Yours very
truly, James j. HILL"
l did not regard my letter as ambigu.
Gus, but waving the point, immediate.
ly replied as follows:
''Hon. James j. Hill, City-Dear Sir:
Referring to the letters which have re.
Gently passed between us, let me say
that Mr.. Dunn explicitly charged in his
speech, if correctly reported, that 1 so.
licited and received from you between
$4,000 and $4,000 in the campaign OF
1894. But one construction can be plac.
ed on this language and but one mean.
ing can be attributed to it, which is that
at the time mentioned l solicited from
you and that you furnished to me fol
my own private and individual use in
that campaign the large sum of money
mentioned. 1t was this construction and
meaning 1 had in mind, when writing
my former letter, and 1 therefore ask
you, first, did 1 solicit from you any
contributions of money in the campaign
of 1894, or any other campaign? If so
when, where and how much?
'Second-Did you contribute to me
personally or for my personal use any
money in 1894, or at any other time for
campaign purposes? If so, when, where,
how much and to whom was the money
paid? These questions are as pointed
and direct as words can make them, and