Hannibal journal. (Hannibal, Mo.) 1852-1853, 1853-05-05


''coatract" with Mr.. Schuyler. 1t will be re-
membered by our readers that we have
never charged any such thing. Our charge
in connection with Mr.. Schuyler, was that
Messrs. Bushnell, Rogers and Bull had in.
duced him to consent to take our bonds.
So Mr.. Bushnell stated TO a public meeting
in this city, on his return Il ON New York
in July last. Mr.. Bushnell, told that meet
ing (held in the court house in this city) that
Mr.. Schuyler had agreed to iaka our bond,
that he had turned them over 10 his
brother, who, he said, would assist them in
preparing the papers to close up the ar.
tangement. II necessary, we pledge our.
self 10 prove that Mr.. Beshnell made this
statement publicly in this city on his return
from New York last year-and we will
prove il by forty or fifty Of the most res.
pectable men in the city. Mr.. Bushnell
made this statement, and he said further,
that MIR. Schuyler afterwards, from some
cause which he Mr.. B. did not care 10 ex.
plain, no, more than three days after having
given them this assurance, declined 10 com.
ply and refused, as he had agreed to do, TO
take our bond. This wsis tie public expla.
nation M.. Bushnell gave last year of his
interview, and understanding and misun-
derstanding with Mr.. Schuyler. Accord.
ing TO Mr.. Bushnell's word given 10 public
meeting, Mr.. Schuyler had "agreed" al.
though he had not "contraetei' TO take our
bonds, and afterwards backed out. Why
did he back QUIT We made this statement
and asked this question and gave the an.
swer few days ago, and Mr.. Bushnell "felt
called upon" to deny ii all! We stated
that Mr.. Schuyler had agreed 10 do this
thing and afterwards declined TO do it; and
we gave as a reason ,Ohy he declined to fulfil
his agreement, that he believed he had a
prospect Of obtaiping the Hannibal char
ter. Mr.. Bushnell "telt called upon" 10
deny all this We then published Mr..
Bushnell's telegraphc dispatch, to prove
that the Hannibal charter had stood in the
way Of the success Of his negotiations in
New York, and that he Of all other men;
should be the last to deny il. "The Naples
and Hannibal bil," said Mr.. Bushnell in
his dispatch, "if passed, defeats our contract
and ks Os rsGsfs rsGxfs,"n na M ''"sa %. ,oac.
. ol 'ha' W" ~ ,,d,s' would be enough to in.
duce Mr.. Schuyler to decline TO taae our
bonds as he had agreed TO do! Something
had knocked over the agreement with Nj.
Schuyler. What was i'll Mr.. Schuyler
is the principal stockhoider in the Spring
field and Naples road, and he wants that
road continued to Hannibal. II. believed
he had prospect Of getting it. He wa.
photographed from Springfield that it would
undoubtedly be chartered by the legislature
then in session. He declined at once tc
) take the bonds Of the road TO Quincy
Mr.. Bushnell, after we had made these
statements, "felt called upon" to deny them
all He attempted in his card 10 make
people believe that Hannibal interests die
not conflict with ours, and that the Hanni
bal charter had not been in our way, nor ia
his way in New York. II his card dGn't
mean this, it didn't mean anything-it wa,
pointess and senseless. This was precis e.
ly whnt il meant. And in order TO prove
that Mr.. Bushnell was not rghi--that thu
Hannibal CHARTER had stood in the way o
our road, we published Mr.. Bushnel's dis
patch-"the Naples and Hlnnibal bill, il
passed, defeats our contract and kills oul
roadT r. That was enough TO prove ouI
point. 1t didn't matter who that "con
tract" had been made with. We have
never charged that contract" was made
with Mr.. Schuyler, as Mr.. Bushnell lalseI
J PretendS in his communications Of yeSter
terday. We stated this distinctly FIVE day
! ago in reply TO his letter which we pub
lished. But Mr.. Bushnell has shown il
this matter from beginning 10 end--in fac
from the day that he returned home from
New York, that he has no OverScrupulou
regard Tor truth. His visit to eastern capi
taiistS did not improve his veracity an,
more than il built the railroad. In hi
communication in the Wing he has altere,
the phraseology Of his dispatch from New
York.
We accept his amendment, and now proceed I
show that il is false in its statement that he ha
"cOntrdetsd for iron to Mt Sterling" This por
tion Of his dispatch he says did not refer to any
thing in which Mr.. Schuyler was concerned
: but "related solely" 10 his "conirGct with Mes
r srs. p. Choutsau, Sanford s. CO." Mr.. Bush
= nell says he referred to these gentlemen, whe
he telegraphed that he had con Tdcisd for iro
TO Mt, Sterling" Suppose we admit it. Is
: tTueP Had he "cohtrdcted' for the "iron" @
e for anything else? If so, he deceived tn
r people Of this city when he returned, for h
. told them plainly in his speech at the couT
hsuse that he had not contracted" but that h
i had obtained a written proposition from thes
$ genllemen to take the bonds of Quincy and G
|. into market and dispose Of them, on conditio
i that rhsy should receive thirty thousand dolla,
" for their services - That was BushnelIs "eoI
o hGctl" What do you think Of h2 He ha
o fugled around for two or three weeks in Ne,
York--he had stTutted tho whole length an
, breadth of Wall street with the bonds of on
u lneonle in his nockel-he had he0oed this can