Muscatine weekly journal. [volume] (Muscatine, Iowa) 185?-1890, 1859-05-27
For the Journal.
RetreMch and Reform,

For the Journal.
Retrenchmemt and Reform
Mr.. EDITOR Your Journal of the 20
has an editorial comment and remark upc
this subject which should denounce in IL
strongest terms if tho principal editor of tt
Journal was at home. L beg of the farm
ers throughout the county and State WI
can get a copy, to look at the Muscatir
Journal of May Goth and read (if you ha,
read once before read it AGAIN. the report {
the Committee of the Taxpayers of tn
county on the expenditures of our Gener
Assembly, and then read the EDITORS remark
on that report and on the subject of rctrenct
ment and reform. was member Of tn
Committee; requested Mr.. Zcigler to g
the items of appropriations made by ou
General Assembly. lie came to my hou.
and read the report to me before we made
to the meeting. l approved the report gen
orally. There were some items and par:ic
ulars of the report l did not approve. Th
distribution of the report of our State Agr;
cultural Society for 1874 large quantit
of them are now in store in Secretary Wal
lace's Office but some of them have, proba
bly,, been distributed. This (the report t.
the contrary is triaing mistake, poin
Mr.. Zeigler was not sufficiently INFORMED
upon.
The Journal denies tn, correctness of ou
statements of the amounts which Our Gener
al Assembly have voted out Of the Treasur,
from year to year. 1t says, 'In the presen
state of enlightenment, with the Committee
researches to assist us, we know about a!
much with reference to them as we did be-
fore" Foolish man to bring such charge.
upon Mr.. Zeigler. | believe his figures art
just as correct as the Statutes Of the State
are and defy the Journal to find an in.
correct statement in the report except thai
relative to the distribution Of the State Ag
ricultural Society's Report, already referred
to, unless made by the Journal itself.
We, as Republicans, complain of the ex
travagance of Buchanan's Administration,
and the meeting of the Taxpayers of Mus.
catine county Qhe editor may ask me who
was there, and when he asks that question
will answer it)-Republicans and Democrat,
complain of those items of prodigacy and
money squandering by our State. Look
again at the items we have set forth. am
that l speak the sentiment of the
majo seven-eights of the voters of the
county when l say zee are going for re-
trenchment and reform, party or no party i!
We have Committee of Correspondence on
this subject, to stir up not only this county,
but the whole State. This committee are
DR.. j. H. Horton, Samuel Sinnett, and my
self and now when Mr.. John Mahin returns
to the editorial post of the Journal, have
reason to believe he will join us in this most
praiseworthy, though unpleasant work-to
keep vigilant watch over the acts of our
public officers.
Will the Enquirer please copy the aboye !?
SUEL FOSTER.
We are always glad to be corrected in a
mistake, and always ready to acknowledge
,ur errors when convinced of them. Mr..
Fosters large experience in the different
branches of agriculture, and the close atten-
ion and labor he has given to his investiga-
ions on that and kindred subjects, have rem
Tered his communications to our columns
generally very correct and valuable. We are
therefore, the more surprised at his present
Anyperson, more especially
,ne whose years and position give weight and
authority to his opinions, and who is not
gnorant of that fact, should be careful, before
le "denounces" opinions opposed to his own,
hat he understands what he is denouncing,
md that the facts warrant his denunciation.
We propose showing that Mr.. Foster has
denounced us for what he has done himself,
las mistaken our position and misrcpresentcd
t, (unintentionally, we believe.)
Mr.. Foster asks our readers to refer to the
Report and to our remarks upon it. We
make the same request. Mr.. Foster says that
'he should denounce our remarks in the
strongest terms if the principal editor were at
aome." We presume he would! The COM
nittee do nothing but "denounce," without
argument or proof, and we don't see any other
defence Mr.. Foster could make for them
except to "denounce," also. AS to Messrs.
Foster and Zeigler, we beg leave to say that
the first time we have seen their names in
with the report in question is in
Mr.. Fosters communication. The report
appeared in the Daily Journal without names
Or authority, entirely anonymous, (see Jour-
nal of 18th and 19th,) so that nothing we
said in regard to it can be construed into dis
respect to these worthy gentlemen. Whether
the omission of signing their names to the
report, in the usual manner, was intentional
or not, we do not know. We did not know
who were the authors of the report till after
our first remarks were published. The
bringing up of their names now, by Mr.. Fos-
ter, does not certainly make it any the more
correct.
Mr.. Foster says: II approve the report
generally. There ,De~e some items and par
,iculars Of The report I did not approce.' -
Then why does he "denounce' us for not
of them If I'VE should "denounce'
Mr.. Foster as opposed to retrenchment and
reform merely because he did not approve Of
that report, we would serve him just as he
has done the Journal, and with just as much
reason that is, none at all.
Mr.. Foster is for retrenchment, but "dis.
approves" of part Of the committees report
The Journal is for retrenchment, but "dis.