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

FAYETTE, Mo. June 30, 1856.
Ed. TIMEs-In your issue of the 10Th of May
last is communication over the signature of +. |
w. Digges, TO portion of which deem it nv
duty TO reply. also wish to review briefly the
statement of Judge Sweanam and others, so far as
they bear upon the questions at issue in this con-
troversy.
had no knowledge of the existence of this arti-
Gle of Judge Digges, till my return from Illinois
on the last day of May; nor OF the Banner article,
to which his is reply, till long after its pubca-
ton; and consequently the presumption of The
Judge that the inquiries by the Banner correspond
ent, were made with my appreciation, is unfound-
ed.
order that the members of the Court might settle
their points OF difference, before private indivld
ual claimed the attention OF the public.
Judge Dgges says "Mr. Saitonstal was re-
moved from the office OF County School Commits
sioner simply because he did not discharge his du-
Ss ans iS soe e And faRsf on Se
SAYS 1t has already been stated that the Court
were unanimous in the opinion that he (Saton-
stall) ought TO be dismissed from office"
As 10 the Immunity of the Court Judge Brown
has denied the truth of DggeS assertion, and from
tile evidence presensed on both sides the question,
the public can, without hesitation, render just
verdict.
In speaking of the action of the Court and of the
motives governing the Court, Judge d. Says "Mr.
| OdIlcnStdlI Was removed from once Simply be-
cause he did not discharge his duties"
Presenting that the Court acted in accordance
with the uniform practice Of Courts of Justice and
in obedience 10 the requi emenls Of our state con-
stitution, we may legltmately draw the following
| differences from Judge Dgges' statement, viz.
| lst. That charges Of neSlec OF duty were pre-
fcrred against me as ground for dismissal from
Office
3D. That was notified of the existence of these
charges and summoned 10 defend myself.
Sd. That trial was had, and d sufficient amount
of evidence adduced 10 warrant the triers of the
cause in finding verdict Of guilty, and that the
verdict was so found.
4th. That the Court punished that guilt by dis
missing me from Office.
These differences, fairly made from Judge d. Is
statements, are, every one Of them, unfouhded IN
fact. had no knowledge Of the existence of this
charge of neglect of duty, till nearly two months
after Judge Dgges alleges that the Court acted
upon il, and removed Inc from Office. enquired
OF Mr.. Burton who acted as Clerk during the
March Term, as TO what TRANSFERRED in Court, and
he assured me that no charges had been made a
gainst me- that no summons had been sued Tor me
that no trial mad taken place, that evidence had
been brought before the Court, that verdict h d
been found, and that no judgment of the Court dis
missing me from Office had been rendered against
me.
Mr.. Deatherage, the Sheriff in attendance on the
Court, during the third day, says that he was pre-
sent and that Mr. Burtons statements IN reference
TO the trial, the Introduction of evidence and the
judgment OF the Court are all true,
Judge Brown in recent number OF the Chimes
says II had any idea that they going to
dismiss him (SatonstalD for future Of duty unit
Digges came out in his first article" nearly siS
weeks after the appointment OF my successor.
have examined the records Of the Court and
quote all that is said in reference to Commissioner
in any way, "The Court appoint Jno. f. Williams
|. Commissioner Of Common Schools in Howard Co
srom the 9th day of March '56 until the LIST day oil
! November '57. Ordered that he give bond in the
sum of 81 900 conditioned as the Law drects,"-
These records were approved and signed by the
, whole Court as true and correct statement Of
their proceedings. If had been found guilty Of
"neglect Of duty" and dismissed from Office il
consequence of il, true and correct record wcul,
, have stated these facts.