The Arkansas banner., 1844-09-04
From the Helena Journal.
TO THE PUBLIC.


 ton; 1t Is much more so, when we have 10 contend with one who is destitute of truth, regardless of honor, and reckless of charac- ter, I have been charged as the public are we'll apprsed, of certain offences by that no- torious slanderer and villifer who edits the Times and Advocate, than which a more de- graded and vile sheet never was published in this or any other age, and l should not have deemed 1t necessary to notice his vile, mean and slanderous charges, but for the fact that his paper, to some extent, cireulates among those who are strangers to me. Here, where am known and have lived for the last fif- teen years, such charges, emanating from such a source, could not affect me but in order that the public may see with what ma lightly have been assailed, will lay before them the whole history of certain transac- ton to which Isuppose Weller had reference when he assailed me:
 In the year 1899, Margaret Williams, (my mother-in-law,1 William Williams, (my bro- ther-in-law,) and myself, engaged in business and kept wharf boat at the Helena landing, and we transacted business under the name and style of w. Williams & Go. The busi- ness of the firm devolved upon me to very great extent, and attended to the business and superntended the affairs of the firm and conducted every thing as though l were the sole owner, without consulting the other members of the firm, as one was a lady and the other young and inexperienced man. During the existence of the firm, l had oc- casion to borrow some money from the bank then located at Helena, for my own use, and l borrowed at one time upon a note $500 and upon two bills of exchange upon New Orleans; one for $ ,000 and the other for $500 These three transactions with tho bank were the extent of my banking opera tions, and to neither bill or note was my mo- ther-in-law's name signed, either as principal or security, and l never obtained but three loans from the bank. as above specified. and they were upon obligations in which l was the principal myself. These sums of money were borrowed prior to the dissolu- tion of the firm of w. Williams & Co.,, and the firm name was endorsed as security of S1,000 by myself, who was member of the firm. There were no articles of partnership written out between the members of this firm, but each was to share profit and loss equal ly. l failed to meet the payments due on the bill for $ 1000, also on the notefor $500, and the bank was about to commence suit against me, or had sued me believe, but proposed that if would pay certain amount and consolidate the bill and note into one obligation, that they would extend time and not proceed with the suit. This proposition was made to me several months after the firm of w. Williams & Go. had been dis solved, as the dissolution took place some time in November, 1899, and was duly pub lished in newspaper printed at Helena After this proposition was made to me, l in- terrogated Judge Sebastian, now of the Su- preme bench, whether or no l had the right to use the name of the firm of which had been member, for the purpose of renewing or taking up bill upon which the firm name had been endorsed prior to its dissolution. He was then the Attorney of the bank, and stated to him the circumstances, and he gave it as his opinion that there was no impropri- ety in my thus using the name of the firm, as had used it to bill before the dissolu- ton, and this new note was to take up all old bill, and not to obtain money thereupon. Acting, then, upon this advice, gave a new note to the bank for $l,900 to take up my bill and note, and gave as security, William Strong, Dr. Benjamin F. Odle, Col John M Burriss. Amariah Gail, and then signed the name of w. Williams & Go. in my own hand write And here, suppose, Weller. that pink of honesty, would say that l had forged the firm name of w. Williams & Co.,, of which was and had been member. It is true that did not tell the other members of the firm that was going to use the firm name, as l never consulted them about busi- ness of any sort.
 Now let us compare the above transaction with Weller's charges, and see whether or not he has not published to the world base, false and slanderous charge, in order to grat- ifv his worse than hellish hatred and hyena disposition. He says ''that applied to the Real Estate Bank at Helena for a discount upon promissory note, making oath that was authorized to sign my mother-m-law's name to it," hereby intending to convey the idea that l had presented note with hel name signed to it, either as principal or SC curity, for my benefit This is untrue from beginning to end. l never presented any such note or ever made any such oath; ant to prove this, would refer to the 9th answer of the Cashier, given in his certificate to me which is published below. He says ssthat did sign her name to 1t, and then drew a cer- tain sum of money upon it. this is untrue as will be seen by reference to the. statemen of the Cashier, by which it will be seen tha .Nrs Williams name, (who is my mother in-law,) was never signed to any note il bank except her own stock notes, and to ont as security for W. Williams, and that thes, notes were signed with her own prope1 name and not in my hand write. A Amoment' reflection would satisfy any business mar that bank never requires men to swea about signatures, and tha, if a note had beer presented with the name of Margaret Will Hams signed to it by any other person thar herself, the bank would have required th, power of Attorney authorizing such persol to affix her signature to be exhibited and du ly authenticated according to law. Yet Vel Ter, in the fecundity of his genius, has foun' out new pay for banks to receive evidenc