Newspaper Page Text
PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY.
1?"EI^^S, $2.00 IFex "STeax.
DUNN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
Oice: FirstSt., East of CourtHonse.
PRINCETON, MINN., NOV. 9, 1893.
REPUBLICAN VICTOR T.
McKinley, the chief apostle of
protection, is re-elected governor
of Ohio by from fifty to seventy
five thousand plurality New York
gives 100,000 majority against
Tammany Massachusetts has tired
of Democratic governors and Rus
sell falls 30,000 short of an elec
tion Boies is buried out of sight
in Iowa and Jackson has a plural
ity of 35,000 even Ne Jersey
elects a Republican legislature.
The Democrats managed to pull
through in Virginia and Kentucky.
Cleveland's financial policy is re
pudiated by the people.
JOHN GOODN OW spoke the
truth when he said a majority of
the Republicans of Minnesota are
in favor of the maintenance of sil-
DAN LAWLER is a lawyer.
was offered a lucrative position
by the Chicago & Great Western
railroad and he accepted the same.
would have been foolish if he
had not accepted. Lawyers do
not practice law for the benefit of
their healthbut for what money
there is in it.
QUICKLY would the clouds roll by,
were this country sure that existing
tariff laws would not be interfered
The tariff was the only issue
that divided the two old parties in
the last campaign. A majority of
the American people pronounced
in unmistakable terms against the
policy of protection and in favor
of free tradeor a tariff for
revenue onlyand it is unreason
able to expect that existing tariff
laws will not undergo radical
changes. The majority
rule and the Democrats
formulate a tariff law in
ance with their platform.
is THERE JOBBERY?
Special Telegram to the Tribune
WASHINGTON, D. D., Nov. 3 The
bill for the relief of the settlers on the
Mille Lacs reservation stands a good
chance of being delayed for some time.
Congressman Baldwin has been warned
that there is a job in the bill and that
the pine land ring is behind it.
The keen scented Washington
correspondents must be hard up
for news when they telegraph such
stuff as the above to the papers
they represent. W have been
battling for these Mille Lacs set
tlers for more than ten years past
and we are not identified with any
"pine land ring." There is no
"pine land ring" or any other ring
behind the settlers. Right and
justice is behind them. Th 250
odd settlers went upon the so
called reservation in good faith
they have built homes, cleared
land and are trying to make an
honest living for themselves and
their families. Many of the bet
tiers have been there for ten and
more years, hardly any less than
five years. Of course, there are
a few black sheep among the set
tlers. I would be passing strange,
indeed, if in 250 male adults there
were not some dishonest individ
uals. Bu the great majority of
the settlers are there in good faith
to remain and develop the re
sources of northern Mille Lacs
county. They have regular town
ship organizations regularly or
ganized school districts they levy,
assess and collect taxes for town,
road and school purposes. More
over, during the past six months
four school houses have been
erected at a cost of $3,200, and 30
miles of new roads have been
opened at a cost of $3,000. I
view of these facts why should the
Mille Lacs settlers be classed as
pine land squatters? Furthermore,
the aggregate amount of standing
pine upon all the settlers' claims
will not exceed 10,000,000 feet.
Great chance for the "pine land
ring!" Senator Washburn and
Congressmen Baldwin and Fletcher
are interesting themselves in the
settlers' behalf mainly at the ur
gent request of the writer.
The joint resolution referred to
is simply and solely for the pro
tection of bona fide settlersto
give them titles to the lands they
occupy. The settlers are poor and
friendless and have no lobby at
Washington to urge their cause.
They rely altogether upon their
representatives in congress. Talk
ing about rings, there are several
rings opposed to the settlersthe
corrupt Indian ring composed of
men who have plundered the gov
ernment and the Indians alternately
for years, the railroad ring and the
real pine land ring. This Mille
Lacs matter has hung fire long
enough the settlers and all con
cerned want to see it disposed of
one way or another as soon as con
gress convenes in regular session.
I the meantime, in behalf of the
settlers, the UNION 'desires to
thank Senator Washburn, and Con
gressmen Fletcher and Baldwin,
especially Mr. W., for their
active efforts in behalf of the bona
fide Mille Lacs settlers, and we
hope the entire Minnesota delega
tion will heartily second the efforts
of the gentlemen above named in
securing the speedy passage of the
joint resolution in question.
Final Disposition Made of the
Case of State of Minnesota
Judge Searle Grants the Motion
of the County Attorney to
There Was No Clash Between the
Attorney General and the
The adjourned term of district court
convened on Tuesday morning with
Judge Searle on the bench, and court
stenographer Russell also in his place.
Assistant Attorney General Edgerton
was present in behalf of the State, and
Mayor D. W. Bruckart of St. Cloud
was on the alert in the interest of his
client County Attorney Ross chatted
with his friends in an unconcerned
manner as though he felt confident of
his ability to measure swords with the
"representative of the czar." The
large crowd of interested spectators
expected to witness a clash of arms be
tween Mr. Ross and Mr. Edgerton, but
in this they were disappointed. When
the case of the State of Minnesota vs.
A. Z. Norton was called Mr. Ross arose
and said: "Your honor, believing that
it is impossible to secure a conviction
in this case, I deem it my duty in the
interest of the tax-payers of the county
to move to dismiss. I do not propose
to argue the motion. No argument is
required. Your honor is fully con
versant with all the facts in the case
and counsel could not enlighten you."
Assistant Attorney General Edger
ton claimed that he, as the attorney
general's representative, represented
the State in this case but he waived
the point of authority and would not
combat the county attorney's motion.
He said, however, that there was new
and important evidence within his
knowledge that he thought would be
sufficient to procure a conviction be
fore a fair and impartial jury in this
county, provided the case could be con
tinued until a time when that evidence
could be obtained. What this evidence
was or who the witnesses were he did
not state. He did not know where the
witnesses were and stated that if the
trial was to take place at this time the
evidence would not be materially dif
ferent from what it was at the former
trial. He referred to an article pub
lished "in that great family journal,
the Princeton UNION," that purports
to contain a copy of a letter written by
the county attorney of this county
which was never received at the office
of the attorney general. He then read
the letter published in the UNION of
last week from Mr. Ross to Attorney
General Childs. This was written in
answer to a letter from Mr. Childs
stating that he had been asked by the
governor to prosecute the ease and
directing the county attorney to take
no steps towards a dismissal of the
same. Mr. Childs had been fully
advised as to all the facts in the case
and concurred with him in the opinion
that the case ought not to be dismissed
and that it should be tried before
another jury. Referring to the letter
written by the attorney general, he
said that when that officer has been
requested by the governor of the State
in writing to prosecute an action of
this kind it is his duty to do it and the
county attorney has no legal jurisdic
tion to try or make any move whatever
in the action. The jurisdiction so far
as the prosecution of that case is con
cerned rests with the attorney general.
But, he said, I am willing that this
motion should be entertained by the
court just the same as if the attorney
general had not been called upon by
the governor in this case.
Mr. Ross in replying said that the
legal point as to who had jurisdiction
in the case being waived by Mr. Edger
ton there was nothing to reply to. He
would not retaliate by making counter
charges. They were too cheap. He
had done what he thought was right.
At the last trial there was a fair and
impartial jury which stood 9 to 3 in
favor of acquittal and he had no reason
to believe that a different result could
be obtained now. He did not want to
entail a large expense upon the county
when no possible good could accrue
D. W. Bruckart, representing the
defendant, insisted that the motion of
the county attorney should either be
granted or the case proceeded with at
once. He said the reasons given by
Mr. Edgerton for a continuance were
altogether too flimsy to be listened to
for a moment.
The court took a recess until 1:30 P.
M. at which time Judge Searle granted
the county attorney's motion in the
The offense of which the defendant
stands charged by the indictment is
murder in the second degree, com
mited on the 2nd day of Nov., 1889.
Two grand juries before, when this
case was presented, failed to find an
indictment, but upon the third present
ation of the case to the grand jury at
the September, term 1892, general
term of this court, the indictment upon
which the defendant is now on trial
was found. The case was brought on
for trial at the last term of this court,
the State being represented by Assist
ant Attorney General Edgerton and the
county attorney, Mr. Ross. A jury
was readily obtained most of whom
were entire strangers to the affair,
having come into the county since the
commission of the alleged offense.
Upon the trial the jury disagreed, and
as stated by them at the time of their
discharge, stood nine for acquittal and
three for conviction. The defendant
then demanded another trial at that
time, but on motion of the attorneys
for the State the trial was postponed
until to-day to enable them to obtain
further evidence in support of the
prosecution and now the county attor
ney moves that the case be dismissed
for the reason that, in his opinion, the
evidence on the part of the State is in
sufficient to secure a conviction, and
that no further proof can be obtained
on the part of the prosecution than was
offered at the last trial. The assistant
attorney general objects to the dis
missal, at the same time stating in
open court that if the case was to be
retried now the evidence on the part
of the State would not be materially
different than that given upon the last
trial. He states, however, that he has
recently learned the name of a person
who might, if present, give some ad
ditional testimony, and has stated to
the court privately what he expected
he could prove by such witness if pres
ent. The whereabouts of such person
is unknown and there is no showing of
any expectation of being able to pro
cure his presence at some future time.
Moreover, if the testimony of such wit
ness could be had it would not, in the
opinion of the court, be material
enough to strengthen the case of the
State or change the result.
There is no showing of any hope or
expectation on the part of the State to
obtain at any time any proof, in addi
tion to the testimony given upon the
last trial, that would, in the opinion of
the court, strengthen the case of the
State, hence this matter must be de
termined upon the case as it stands.
The defendant has a right under the
constitution of the State to a speedy
and impartial trial, although this right
must be construed to give the State
every reasonable opportunity to prepare
for trial. It seems to me that there is no
showing on the part of the prosecution
which would justify a postponement of
the trial. The principal and only
other question to be determined there
fore is whether the motion to dismiss
should be granted.
I regret very much that this contro
versey has arisen between the county
attorney and the attorney general as to
their authority to represent the State
in this behalf. The attorney general
having been requested by the governor
to prosecute this case claims that his
authority, under the statute, super
venes that of the county attorney.
However, the attorney general waives
this right and submits the case to the
court for the exercise of its discretion
and judgment in the premises. It is
not necessary therefore, for me to de
termine the question as to which of
these officers has the paramount
authority, for, under the statute, the
court may in its discretion, grant or
refuse the motion whether made by the
county attorney or the attorney gen
eral, and decide the case as it deems
proper, considering all the facts and
circumstances before the court.
In deciding this motion therefore, I
take into consideration the testimony
given upon the former trial and the
fact, as stated by the county attorney
and attorney general, that no further
or additional proof can be obtained at
this timeor which would in the
opinion of the court change the re
sult. I am satisfied that it would be
impossible to obtain a conviction upon
that testimony, either in this or any
other county, and that should a trial
of this case be had at this time it would
result either in an acquittal of the
defendant or a disagreement, never a
conviction, which would entail a large
and useless expense upon the county.
Of course I know nothing about the
case except by way of evidence given
at the time of the last trial, and in my
judgement that evidence is not suf
ficient to warrant a conviction, and I
would deem it my duty to set aside the
verdict should the case be retried and
a verdict rendered against the defend
ant upon that testimony. Entertaining
this opinion, as I do, as to the insuf
ficency of the proof to justify a con
viction, in the exercise of that discre
tion which is vested in the court by
statute, I feel that this motion should
be and the same hereby is granted.
Keenly feeling and appreciating the
responsibility resting upon me, and the
importance of the case, I have*given
the matter a thorough, careful, and
conscientious consideration, and I have
come to the conclusion that further
prosecution of this case would be use
less, and the ends of justice will be
subserved by the action I have here
I will here say that Judge Baxter,
the senior judge of this district, has
been fully advised as to the facts in
this case, and he concurs with me in
the opinion I have here expressed.
In making this motion to dismiss, I
deem it proper to say that the county
attorney has acted conscientiously and
the utmost good faith and is moved
solely by what seems to him to be his
duty in the premises and from a desire
to promote justice and the interests of
the county he represents. The as
sistant attorney general, I have no
doubt, has also acted from high-minded
motives and the interests of what he
deems to be the right.
Now these questions and differences
haye to be decided by the court and in
deciding I have done what I think is
right. I have acted according to my
best judgment in the light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding
Salesmen and Transient
THE COMMERCIAL HOTEL
Is First-Class in All Its Appointments, and the
Aim of the Management is Jto Make the Guests
When You Visit Princeton Stop at
THE COMMERCIAL HOTEL.
MBBY & SMITH, Prop's.
Corner Mam and First Streets, Princeton.
Having Recently Purchased the Stables we are
prepared to accommodate traveling men and all
others with Good Rigs at cheap rates. Drivers
tarnished, if desired.,
LIBBT & SMITH, Proprietor.
C. K. YOUNG. O. H. BUCK.
YOUNG & BUCK,
All Kinds oi Blacksmith Work
Neatly and Promptly Done.
We Make a Specialty of
No Trouble to Show Goods.
Shop two Doors West of Citizens State Bank,
First Street, Princeton.
EVENS & HERDLISKA"
Wish to announce1
to the public that
they have secured
Large id Ccmmoik Quarters
And will be better prepared to meet the
Wants of Their Customers
Than ever before, and will be pleased to meet all their old
customers and many new ones.
A Cordial Invitation
Is extended to all to call and inspect our line of
Jewel. Faultless and Economy
Universal Cook Stoves,
Which are the Finest ever brought to this market.
One Fully Warranted.
W E CARRY A WELL ASSORTED STOCK OF
Fire Sale You Have Heard so
Much About is
AVING Secured Control of the Mammoth
Stock of Dry Goods, Clothing, Boots and
Shoes, Hats, Caps, Notions and Fancy Groceries
the Fire of C. H. nines' Mammoth Store,
We are Prepared to Offer You the Same at
Prices that will Astonish You at their Lowness.
No One Complains of High Prices Here.
Not Shoddy Goods
TO SELL AT CHEAP PRICES,
But Honest Goods.
$2.00 FOR $1.00.
Seems Funny that any one should Offer to Give You Two Dollars for
One Dollar. Of course W E DO not Mean that we will Give
you Two GOLD dollars for One Silver dollar. Bu
W Mean that you can Buy as Much for
One Hundred Cents of Us
As You can for Two Hundred Cents Anywhere Else in Town.
f\F course Our Stock has Been Through the Fire and Consequently
Must he Sold AWAY DOWN. Bu the Goods are Not Dam-
aged, so to speak. You Investigate Our Prices. W Guarantee the
Goods. W have Secured Control of These Goods and they Must he
Sold. Of course it would not do to let you Name the Price, hut the
Price will he so Low that you will not dispute the* Fact that'they are
the Lowest You Ever had Offered you in Princeton. A present W
are Located in Newton's Store aud shall he pleased to Meet all Old
Friends, and Become Acquainted with New Ones. No Remember
where we are, Newton's Store. We Guarantee One Price to All as
we do a
And One Dollar will Buy More Clothing, Boots, Shoes, Hats, Caps,
Dry Goods, Notions, or Groceries of us than Anywhere Else in Town.
These Goods will No Last Always as we are Bound to Dispose of
Them in 40 Days.
CALL AND SEE US.
Hartman ?d Patterson.
TINWARE, BUILDING PAPER,
EVEN S & HERDLISKA,
^Destroyers & High Prices
THE HARDWARE AND FURNITURE LINE.