Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1912-05-09

Banner has howled Glitch bunch" and
has openly accused them of being
grafters. Who did the paper mean
BY ditch bunch? Who did the paper
refer to in it's issue Of April 4, when
it stated that the bitches have cost
g; per cent in excess of what they
really should and then adds: "The
thirty-three per cent represents The
rake-off that the bunch" got for be-
ing such wise fellows? Let us have
the names of those who constitute the
bunch, these wise fellows. BY
the Banners insinuations no others
could be meant than those who have
had a hand in establishing and let
ting the contracts for these bitches
and allowing the vouchers in payment
thereof. The judges of the district
court, the county attorney, the coun-
ty board, the clerk of court, the sher-
if, the surveyors, viewers and engi-
neers and the contractors-all who
have had anything to do in an official
capacity with the building of the
ditches-conae under the Banners stig-
ma of being grafters. The Banner
says now that it has mentioned only
the name of former county attorney
Brown and did not really intend to i'm
plicate any others. That will do to
say now, when it finds itself unable to
substantiate it's charges. What does
the word bunch" mean? Does that
mean composed of one only in the
Banners dictionary? But even if by
bunch" the Banner referred to only
one person, former county attorney
Brown, is there any reason why he
should be condemned without hear
ing? The Sheaf has repeatedly ask
ed the Banner to furnish proof for it's
charges and insinuations and to call
for a public investigation, but in vain.
Justice and square deal to those up
on whose character and good name
grave aspersions had been cast. de-
that the Banner should prove
its charges, but instead of doing that,
it has reiterated them in a still more
bold and offensive form When this
paper and many others in the district
stood up in defense of those who had
been charged with a crime for which
no proof was Forthcoming and who
therefore We're innocent in the eyes
of the law, and in defense of drainage
in general, which the paper also had
then, instead of argument
the Banner demonstrates it's skill in
personal abuse and the throwing of
mud. We do not propose to meet it
on that field, as We consider it be-.
meath us to do so. The Banner is not
enlightening the people of Marshall
county on the ditch question by
throwing mud at us, nor would we do
it by throwing mud in return. The
people want to learn the truth in the
matter. We do not propose to shift
the issue to mud Singing persona,
controversy between us and the Ban
ner. Something more than the mud
ability Of editors is at stake
IN this controversial is the charac-
ter and reputation OF citizens Of tbs
county. If the Banner is sincere in
what it said last week, it should pub
fish in it's columns public disavowal
OF any intention to cast reflections and
aspersions on the good name and
character of any other person than
Mr. Brown. Will it do so? That
would be the manly way to do. BY
Sc doing the controversy would be
narrowed down to one person, and we
would not need to grope so much in
the dark when discussing the question
in the future.
But one thing is certain, the Ban
ner will reap no glory for itself by
the mud-slinging campaign it has
against the editor of this pa
per.