Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-07-03

The dismissal of an officer is an act entirely dis
tinct aud different from the appointment OF an OFF,
Ger. And IN tins case II necessary TO state that
dismissal upon the record in order 10 relieve the
Court from the imputation of extrem, folly in
having two individuals in the same Office at the
same time when the law allows but one.
The only fact yet developed which even tends
TO show that charges were preferred against me Is
a remark which Sweatnam says he made to Brown
after his (Browns) refusal 10 vote in the election
Of Commissioner. Sweatnam says 81 know that
stated that Slltonsa had not done his duty at that
timc.r This remark could not have been made
The basis Of my dismissal, for Judge Sweatnam re-
lates it as occurring during the election of my
cessor the dismissal, IL made at all must have pre-
coded that election. This observation of Judge s.,
IL made at all, must have been very casually made
for although Judge Brown suspected them of
desire to dispace me yet as has been already quo
ted he "never had any idea they were going TO dis
miss me for fdiiare Of iittT' till Judge Digges
came ont in his first artcleo on the 18th of May.
But in this same conversation pending the cleo
ton of Commissioner, Mr.. Burton tells us that
"Judge Brown then remarked that If Salionstall
was to be displaced they (the Court) ought 10
consult together" &C., to which Judge Sweatnam
replied Chow do You know that Saltonstall is 10
be turned out, something TO that effect" Is this
question Of Sweatnam's consistent with the suppo-
siton that the Court was entertaining charges of
neglect of duty against me with view to dismiss
al from office? Or does il not rather show that
Digges and Sweatnam were laboring 10 secure the
election of my successor and thus indirectly effect
my removal without letting even their brother Jus-
tice upon the bench with them know their design.
Every disinterested witness who has vet made a
statement of what occurred in Court alleges that
the first thing was proposition TO 90 into an cleo
ton Of Commissioner. Not one word is said about
dismssng any one for neglect of duty. The Court
or rather majority Of the Court proceeded just as
it there had been vacancy; and Immediately upon
the heels OF Williams appointment they adjourned-
When SweatBam consulted his lawyer, Mr..
Herndon, he enquired as TO the right of the Court
to appoint, and not as TO the right 10 dismiss; and
when he went into Court he made proposition 10
appoint and not 10 dismiss one for neglect of duty
II seems evident then that the question of my
guilt innocence was not considered by the Court
at all, but that the design was TO appoint Com
missioner at the Mar h Term just as they had 0
right TO do at the November Term without inqur-
ing 10 how the duties of the office had been dis
charged.
| In conclusion, | would say that feel aggrieved
in this; that if Judges Digges and Sweatnam actnc
as members of the Court dismissed me from office
for neglect of duty, they withheld from Inc my in
alienable right of self defence, and condemned me
without hearing: but if they did not dismiss me
! from Office for neglect of duty, then have beer
wrongfully published 10 the world as denquen
officer, condemned by the Court and punished by
dismissal from Office
Respectfully, ]. II. SALTONSTALL.