Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1844-03-08
For the Herald.

Mn. EDITOR Your paper Of the Cd OF
February, contains the 'explanaiion &c." of
Suel Foster, Of the suit now pending between
the corporation and himself. for the wharf,
Streets, SC. which in part consists OF criticism,
upon my notice Of that case in the Herald OF
the previous week, and although the language
is not very mild or respectful ifor he knows no
betier,) yet would not reply thereto were 1t
not that the suit itself is Of deep interest TO
the community and ! wist, 10 keep him and
his doings thereon before the public in the
light his conduct deserves.
Suel Foster says in his introductory re-
marks tha, the . Solicitor 70. the town called
on him and said that although he furnished the
abstract, it was NOT with the view OF publlca-
,ion." by which he would endeavor TO convey
the impression that had acted improperly 10
obtainingit. But his false statement shall re.
coil upon his own head /; for the Attorney did
NOT call upon him, nor did he ever say that the
abstract was not furnished for publication, at
least / have his word for the truth OF my as
ser,ion. The Attorney met Suel Foster IN one
of the streets. for which the corporation is con-
tending, and said to him that he did not fur
nisl The comments appended 10 the abstract.
fact known to every body except Suel Foster
and he did not wish him to understand that the
and equity; and distinctly informed him that
he furnished the abstract to me at my request
for publication, and was answerable TOR the
ruth thereof and for the remarks which fol-
lowed il.
Suel Foster further says that my statement
Of the suit is improper, incorrect. one-sided,
garbled and false" Of its propriety leave
The public to Judge, while will re.affirm and
prove IT'S correctness, and Suel Foster when
he said il was false, knew that he was PEN
ming statement as false as he could write. !
said that his solicitor had demurred TO the
compliments bill, which was .overruled, and
by operation Of law vested the right OF the
property in the town, and that defendant had
either 10 appeal or make an AFFIDAVIT. Of merits,
which, did not think he could or would do,
but in this erred, for he did make such an
affidavit, and the solicitor fer the town then,
BY consent, had leave to mend his bill. My
statement of the case then is correct, while
that in regard to his action is net, for ] should
have said that no one except Suel Foster
would make such an affidavit. and his attempt
TO prove my statement incorrect ny giving Its
condition week after mine was written, Is in
character with the man.
That my statement is one-sided may be true,
for it has but one side, and l could not do 9th
erwise than give it, nor do see that his labor
ed "expldnaion'' mends it in the least. for
his solicitor will never avail himself Of it TO
defend his client. Nor did he in either case
show wherein it was garbled, for stated all
the points Of complainants-and ldeiendanL
had none for the public eye at that time, and1t
is unfortunate for him that he has any now.
He explains" by saying tina. the .Swn. in
ordering him to deed in accordance Eiih his
hond, So did rot make the order general TO APP
ply to Others" Well, what of IL? What
business is it TO him if others are Inclined n
cheat the town? What excuse is that for him?
II is the business Of an honest citizen TO do
his duty, regardless of the conduct Ct rognes;
and it is well 70! the town that the order was
not general, if the other persons Of whom he
speaks are like unto him.
Further, he says, II don't know which
would be most proper for me to deed 10, the
Corporation, the County. the Territory, or the
United Slates," thereby acknowledging that
he ought 10 deed TO one Of them. Had he
have examined the bond to which he put his
hand and seal, he would have found that there
he binds himself as folows-all land not APP
piled for in six months - shall be forfeited to
the to,cn Of Blooming ton,'' and that "sad
Foster shall convey to the toavn Of Blooming-
ton all such as may not be included in said
certificates leave this plain language to
speak for itself, and fer Suel Foster so recon-
cileit with his statement.
He further says-"1 have paid my money
for the lots and other property. wharf and
streets to which have the title, uufortu-
nately for the town. together with surveying,
taxes and various other expenses had amount
ed to considerable sum, for which no COM
pensa,ion has been offered me.' Let us COM
~; nj fho facts
we can find the truth.
On the 25ih Of March, 1910, Suel Foster
bid this property off at Burlington, and paid
500 % l.2, on the Goth he had his certificate
and the survey recorded. Now | don't be:
iove he had it surveyed, but that it had been
before his purchase, and the surveyor certified
its correctness because the law required him
TO do SO, and that the county paid for the same.
believe this to be the fact, because know
that it was surveyed before, and he had not
time TO do it between his return and the date
Of its record; even if he did, he did not pay for it,
Now as to the taxes, did he pay taxes for
the wharf and streets! does he think the PEG.
pie such fools as to believe any such false and
silly statements bui he did pay taxes!
picayune perhaps for lots that the public
care not that much about-M is the wharf and
streets that the town care about, although they
claim the lots because he bound himself to
deed them to the town, unless he did not exc
cute that bond in good faith, which is proba-
bly, true.
II he has not (but he has) received ample
conservation for all his trouble, it is his own
fault, for one of his own resolutions, adopted
by the meeting that appointed him as bid
der. honest, faithful, and capable," provides
$ that the claimants shall pay the said purcha-
ser the expenses of surveying, recording and
purchasing, in proportion to the number Of lots
they own, and the sum of rs cents for each