The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1912-01-12

one of them nineteen years old, it
was decided upon the suggestion OF
the park foreman and the commits
sioner of parks, to reduce the herd.
The expense of keeping so large a
herd was also to be considered He
said that Commissioner Bangerter
had brought the matter up before
the council and even the legal ad.
wiser, meaning himself.
He wanted it understood that Mr..
Bangerter was not to blame entirely
for the killing of the deer, as other
members of the council had had a
hand in the affair also. There was
no intention of violating the law
simply to reduce the expense of the
city, and to reduce the number of
male deer in the park. The matter
received long and deliberate consid-
Grafton before the deer We're killed.
Regarded as Private Property.
However, the city attorney thought
that the deer were private property
as they We're offsprings Of private
property. He said that the original
deer brought to the park were
brought from private parties prior
to the establishment of the game
laws.
"NVe did not so into this matter
arbitrarily. But the question now
arises as to what was the best way
to reduce the herd. Mr.. Bangerter
made trip to the twin cities to see
Mr.. Rider and he talked the mat
ter over with him, and that is how
this difficulty arose"
But this matter was not now con
tested in court. The statements
made were merely for the purpose
of setting the public right as to vino
should bear the blame. He wanted
it distributed among other council.
men. There was no intention on
the part of the city officials to vic.
late the law.
When County Attorney Schmitt
was asked what suggestions he had
to make, he said that the state had
understood the matter as Mr.. Daley
had stated it. He thought it was
merely a technical violation of the
law and that therefore the state
suggested that a minimum fine would
answer justice i'll this case.
Public Should Have Been Advised.
Judge Comstock then asked Attor-
ney Daley few questions about the
original deer whether they belong.
ed to private parties or not, to
which Mr.. Daley replied that they
did. The judge then stated that he
thought the public should have been
informed as to the exact facts long
ago, that the public had evidently
misunderstood Mr.. Bangerter from
the hearSay on the streets.
Time was when all these animals
were common property. until the
state took the property to itself ex-
clusively. After this enactment OH
mails became the property of the
state. The public has a right to
know these things and they should
have long ago been informed, es.
pecially about the deer coming from
private herds
Judge Was Humorous.
In a rather humorous vein, Judge
Comstock said that he had thought
the charges brought. against Com.
missioner Bangerter We're extreme
ly serious, but that he had been mis-
informed as to the matter OF re-
sponsibility. lie did not know Mr..
Bangerter was to blame any more
than others but from the statements
made by the city attorney and tie
county attorney, he had come to the
conclusion that the charge was a
technical offense. And if this was
true, then the minimum penalty
would satisfy the ends of justice.
He thereupon fined Commissioner
Bangerter $50 and costs, or in de.
fault OF payment, thirty days in the
county Jail. The fines were pai3.
And the deer incident is closed.
Commissioner Bangerter is to be
commended for accepting his share
of the blame in this unfortunate af-
fair in the face of the fact that he
had been advised by attorneys that
no case could lie against him had
he plead not guilty and stood trial