Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1912-02-26
.,.' ,fgs
Communications
Editor Bismarck Tribune:

~e~>~es~e
a In your issue of the 23rd instant
/ notice piece headed beats An Edi-
tor for Boosting Roosevelt" and while
seem of it is correct the most Of it
isn't. I will give you facts correctly.
In the first place the editor in ques.
ton did not write the article. He
only claimed 1t, as he admitted to
me, and then it wasn't boosting Roose'
welt. It was only abusing William H.
Taft, and trying to mix politics and re.
ligion, which I and every fair.minded
man believes is wrong, as told the
editor. and he said that j., T. Hoge
had written the editorial and not he.
I asked him to retract that particular
part Of the article. He said he would
go to h before he would. then told
him to bring in my bill and take my
name off his mailing list. He sent
me the next paper and in it he gave
me an abusive writeup. This writeup
is what he and had the trouble over
just because he got personal, and not
because he was boosting Roosevelt,
as don't believe his boosting is heard
outside Of Underwood. The sheriff
didn't arrest me-, nor was the fine SIS
nor the total 1926. Il a.
And / believe c. W. Gordon showed
the kind of man he is.. when he had
to go to the state of North Dakota
to get revenge. There are two of them
trying to run the Journal and poor
job they are making out of it. The
Energy Sun explains it when he said
"too much religion" You may pub
lish this article If you wish, and I
ask you to, asst is correct.
Yours truly,
JOHN G.. NrALONEY.
Editor of Tribune:
AS a weekly paper published in
this city has been fit to attack me
through its columns unfairly and I'm.
truthfu'ly for the part that I took in
a recent unfortunate occurrence at
the $500" depot last Thursday,I will
ask the favor of space enough in the
Tribune to state just what actually
did occur on that occasion.
7 say unfairly" because I have had
no communication with the editor Of
the paper in question or with any
representative Of that paper. and
therefore he could not possibly have
been in possession of a full knowledge
of both sides of the case, as any
fair-minded man should be who makes
such an attack upon fellow citizen
as appeared in the "Settler' of last
Thursday.
The facts are as follows: Thurs
day afternoon my youngest son came
home crying bitterly and evidently
suffering severe bodily pain from the
effects of blow. In answer to my
questions he informed me that the
baggageman at the 500 depot had
kicked him out If the baggage,room,
because he had been slow in moving
of the railroad premises where he
had been playing marbles with other
boys. If the editor Of the Settler had
children Of his own he might be able
to form some idea of how father
would feel under the circumstances.
As he has not however, I will submit
the matter to any parent with red
blood in his veins and ask him what
his first impression would be should
his boy come suffering from the
bruise inflicted by the boot of a grown
man? I then started forthwith for
the depot-about a block distance-to
investigate the matter. and, in answer
to my direct question, and without
any further explanation. the bagge-
man admitted that he did kick the
boy out of the building. Upon this I
smote the individual in question
twice with the open hand, and Incl.
dentally informed him what kind of a
man thought he was. There was
no brutal and disgraceful assault"
the man was in no way injured, ex-
cept as to his feelings. I was in
d'gnant that my son was hurt in such
manner and because Of the mans
brazen admission of a cowardly as.
sault upon mere child, manifestly
incapable of offering resistance, and
for the movement never thought Of
official position that I held.
OF course, upon calmer thought, I