Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-07-03
ADvERT tbs EMEN rs.
For The Tine!

last paper contains another Epistle general
from Brown 80 Che public.'' l entertained
no doubt when wrote my last communica.
ton. that, tough and insensible as his moral
cuticle was, the singing truths it contained
would penetrate TO the quick, and we see
accordingly that, after making desperate
but Intellectual effort to rid himself Of the
sore annoyance, he calls on his friends TO
come to his relief, as though their certif-
Gates could resusitate reputation already
in hopeless state Of collapse, or replace
tho skin which has been peeled of in this
controversy. Such, say, was fully antici-
pated and has been amply provided for.
Before introducing rebutting testimony, !
propose 10 examine the three certificates
appended 10 Judge Browns last article,
commencing first with that of Mr., Andrew
J. Herndon.
II will be seen that this gentleman fur
nishes statement to Judge Brown, the
design of which is to create the impression
on the public mind that he (Herndon) had
not been asked by Judge Sweatnon for his
opinion relative 10 the power of the Court
10 appoint School Commissioner, and that
he (Herndon) had not, as stated by Judge
Sweatnam, expressed the opinion that the
Court did have that power.
Now let us examine the language employ
ed by Mr.. Herndon on that occasion as ad-
united by him in his certificate, and see if
with all the skill in twisting and mystifica-
ton an old attorney is capable of using to
best effect, that language can, by any means,
be construed into anything like a denial Of
the declarations of Judge Sweatnam. He
says, that when Judge 5. asked him "Can
we make the appointment now?" he answer
ed 81 do not know, but suppose the Court
could re-appoint Mr.. Saltonstall and have
the order made stating that he was reap
pointed for twoy gears from November 1855"
In his next certificate would like the gen.
tleman to enlighten us as 10 the difference
between an appointment and re-appoint-
ment, aud the difference between appoint
ing Mr.. Saltonstab between the regular
terms of appointment, and appointing any
body else at such a time. Will he stake his
legal reputation upon the construction he
here gives TO the School Law, in saying TO
Judge Sweatnam tnat the Court had the
power to re-appoint Mr.. Saltonstall, and in
inSinuating TO the public that he wishes Judge
Sweatnam TO understand him as expressing
the opinion that the Court had no pousr 10
appoint any body else at that time? In say
ing that the Court could re-appoint Mr..
Saltonstall then, does he not admit that they
could appoint any body else as well9 Or
will he have us believe that the office Of
School Commissioner was created solely for
Mr.. Saltonstall's occupancy? Aye, but Mr.
Andrew J. Herndon has short hand sys-
TEN of getting out Of the difficulty of APP
pointing between terms for he tells judge
S. 'the Court could re-appoint Mr.. Salton.
stall by making the order stating that he hat
been re-appointed from Nov. 1855" Now
if it required an illegal act, on the part o
the Court, 10 make Mr.. Saltonstall's election
legal, ask the gentleman TO inform tn
public if similar Justification of the recort
would not have similarly legolzing eifec
lpon the appointment Of any body else?-
Most undoubtedly, and Mr.. Andrew
Herndon knows that in admitting the powe
of the Court in the one case, he admits il il
the other also. He SO understood at tn
ime-intended to be SO understood by Judg
Sweatnam, and, as shall presently show
acknowledged to third party-nOt Judg
B-that he had given it as his opinion tina
the Court did hare tie po,osr 10 appoint {
School Commissioner at the very time Nh
Williams was appointed, in his particula
case. But in his zeal for his friend Brow
he finds himself in all awkward position an
endeayors 10 relieve himself somewhat b
telling that he did not consider bis opinio
was sought by Judge Sweatnam either as
lawyer or as a clerk. In the name of cal
dor and consistency ask then in what ca
paciiy was it given?-as solicitor in ordini
ny 10 the Fayette ciique2-privy counsellC
10 the Howard County Banner? or whippel
in TO the modern firm of Quirq, Cannon
Snap? For it is certain even by his Ow
confession that the learned gentleman gay
some sort ofan opinion in some sort of capa'
lily, The fact is this is about the smalle
specimen Of fog of all the petty togs tt
gentleman has ever raised in the who
course of his extensive experience in tn
line of practice.
As sort of apology, however, either f
having given SO ridiculous opinion, or +
recommending 10 the Court a Justification
its record, or for The general character
LIZ narfiGcain Mr. H.rndnn iells Inl