Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1852-01-29
For the GaIIipOli. journal.

communication signed "Gaul," " which
/ recommend should be carefully pre-
served as rare specimen Of English
Literature. IT purports to be a reply
TO nv communication, published 10
the Journal of the 18th inst.
Asto the "spsce occupy in this
vorld.v or whether I was "placed
here BY mistake. being originally de-
signed for some larger planet Than
this little earIh." cannot, as ! con-
ceive, have anything TO do with the
questions | proposed TO discuss. nor
do intend, at this, or any other
time, to reply to such buffoonry.
In my communication ] intended
only to call the attention Of the pub
lie TO the subject of "the GaIlipolis,
Jackson, and Chillicothe Railroad"
and give it all the information had
upon the subject. | referred TO the
provisions of the statute "Regulating
Railroad companies" and gave the
rumors (as rumors) in which SUBJ
scriptions were TO be induced. II a
publication OF facts is TO be consider
ed the throwing "shower Of cold
water or an intimation "that some
cunning fraud is intended" then /
am guilty of both. | suggested, in
that communication, that the corpo-
rators, or some of them, comnuni-
cate "through the county newspaper
TO the public the whole matter."-
Why did they not do sol The re-
ference to "the legislative career OF
some man." | must confess | do not
understand; for myself am
"Content TO breathe my native air.
In my own ground"
That "the construction OF this in
fermediate and ultimate link of rail-
road between the East and West,
will no doubt improve Gallipolis,"
/ do not undertake TO controvert;
but | cannot for the life Of me see
that "the signs OF the times" will
"grow fear(ully dark" in any direc-
ton. That "small potatoes will be
exchanged for larger ones" is not
impossible; but that certain "small
potatoe" about GalIipolis. will ever
grow TO be ''larger one" is not with
in the range Of possibility.
To the charge that | miSinterpret
the Inv creating the corporation,
say unequivocaIly, it is nat true;
neither did | insinuate "ihat those
controlling stockholders will never
pay more than the entry fee Of SIS,
but secure their property under
homestead exemption laws" ! knew
better; knew that it was not in the
power OF the corporators TO prevent
each stakeholder from paying his
dividends, provided the stockholder
had the means Of paying. And TO
this | objected, on the hypothesis
that the report which 1 gave was
correct. / knew the corporators
could not screen the stockholders
from payment, and cautioned the pub
lie against any such promises or in
situations. "Gaul'' admits "the pro-
iect may have been mooted" and adds
+'that any such steps have been taken
is without foundation" Now in the
name Of common sense, 10 what does
"Gaul'' object in my communication.
| gave it as report, only, and express
sed the hope that the report was
without foundation, for the credit Of
all concerned. What then is the
issue between US? What was said in
my last communication, that should
have called upon me such shower
of billingsgaie, such string of low
buffoonry, language suited only to
some pot house BLACKBOARD? l make
no charge against the corporators.-
] think them gentlemen; but | do
not recognise "Gaul'' as their author
ised organ; if he is, however, | fear
they will not long retain their present
standing.
distinctly stated in my last com.
municalion, that no honest man
could have any objection TO the SUBJ
scription Of stock, and | now repeat
it, nor to the construction ofthe road,
provided no fraud was practised.-
"Gaul" denies all frGud-what then
have | donel-Of what charge, that
he brings against me, am | guiItyl-
II "Gaul" thinks that bv low black
guardlsm, or any other means, he
will seal up my mouth, when fraud
is about to be perpetrated on the
public, he mistakes his man.
There is one other thing which | !
wish 10 call attention to, it is the 2
charge that in order TO cast odium
upon the Company, have linked it
with the "everlasting infamy which i
attaches 10 the memory of the CALI !
polls and CircIeville Bank organiza- /
tion." This charge is wholly gratui- Z
tous; and any man Of ordinary guilt
biIity, who will read what l said
upon that subject, will see that '
made no such charge against the
company. What / said was upon 4
the presumption that the fraud which