The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1858-04-17
oaayesy lz,sA r..e..

O1keGuO Veal W y0&6 tniS lntO COu1lucI1tiUM
I'VE decline showing our hand further nm
till the Bsgle man sssntiss," at least. The
facility with which he propounds interroga.
tories, is only equalled BY his agility in dodg-
ing and somersaulting. He asked US several
questions, in his issue Of the 7th inst, and
we referred him to the files of our paper for
our answers. With his characteristic ingen-
uousness, he quoted several sentences, cou-
pled with tho remark that there was no
opinion expressed therein. Il is not our
fault, surely, that he was 50 unfortunate IN
his selections. We would advise him to
"pick his flint and try again." if he is really
in search Of information.
In answer to our request, that ne would
correct the statement previously made, that
we had endeayored to create the impression
that swindie had been practiced in the
Court House contract, he publishes the FOL
lowing extract from the Nonpareil, OF Marcn
9th: asa
eve acknowiedge our inability to discern the ree
10 Tho question NJ ISSUE unless It Is designed to make
more manifest the dupcity and unfaathuness VI 'n0
County Judge" tsa
And remarks, rs follows: s
eve would ask our candidG) contemporary, Il the I'M
preston created in the oregoins extract nat
nlicy had been practced by the County judge anu tna
the publication Of the contract was ntendca 70 MaAe
more manifest|
Not at all. We were remarking upon
what we supposed to be the design OF our
correspondent, who, we thought, was trying
to make it appear that there had been SWIM
ding practiced in that connection and deem
cd the publication Of the contract necessary
70 the more perfect showing OF his position.
That we ha-s said, and that we now firmly
believe that your County Judge has been
guilty of 'sduplicity and unfaithfulness'' in
the management of the affairs of the County,
we do not deny. Whether, his duplicity and
unfaithfulness, was carried into the consum-
nation Of the Court House contract, we are
not prepared to say. This is what we said
on the 9th of March, followed by the re-
mark, that s'if the contract was entered into
in good faith on the part of the contractors,
We do not see that any blame can justly at
tach to them.' Neither do we, now, even
after the hair-splitting of the Buqle. After
the remarks as above quoted, we said-"lf
the County Judge was party to an attempt
to swindle tho people Of the county, the
whole blame attaches to him and he should
be held to strict account for his actions"
We are Of the same opinion now. This is
the sentence, into which the Bugle accuses
US of desire to interpolate the word "only."
We deny the soft impeachment, for it could
not but be understood that in case the
contractors entered into the arrangement in
"eood fath,' there was only one party left
to perpetrate swindle, and that party, the
County Judge, ergo, the whole blame should
uttach to him. But, as We said before, it
matters not to US upon whom the blame falls,
only so that it is proportionate to the Of
tense committed. .... ....,.-...
In relation to the Poor Farm purchase,
we will make proposition to the Bugie, to
this effect: For his opinion upon the va
lidity and equity Of the Court House con-
tract, he shall have ours upon the Poor
Farm purchase, both as regards the charge
of swindling, and as to whom the blame
should attach, in case of the charge being
sustained. ....-.~ ~s.-. ..a-- -..
When We fulfil the promise made in our
issue Of the 18th ult., it shall not be our
fault, (f there is any virtue in modern
English if our neighbor fails to discoveries
directness. The issue is still pending, so
don't be uneasy. When the Bugle redeems
all its promises, it will then be time enough
for it to attempt to reproach us with "short
comings." Wewot of one promise, at least,
that it has not made good. We commend
it to little forbearance, on the score Of
promises. Great is the whang- doodle of
the unterrifed-s'he gnaweth file." 8