Cedar Falls gazette. [volume] (Cedar Falls, Iowa) 1860-1895, 1860-11-23
For the Gazette.
Explanation Explained.

=
paper of1ast week, entitled .AtEzplanation."
1t seems to me that the |" anothcrn referred
to in that article must be ai.ed by very
tender conscience to discover anything in
Your refercnceto a." Select School which
required notification I have been unable
to discover anything in it which reflects in
the slightessdcgree upon any one. The au-
thor Of the aforementioned article, seems to
attempt to acquit himself OF all blame in the
matter, by denial and his own assertions
merely, without. any facts or circumstances
to establish his position. Merely saying no
blame is attached to the defendant, does not
make it so. He's says, Who engaged hcry'
and answers it himself: ".Not the defendant"
The author being himself " the defendant" Of
course this would be the verdict, il he is to
determine the matter; but it is not custom
airy in this country for men to sit in judg-
ment upon their own cases. Itseems to have
been proved to the satisfaction Of disinter-
ested jury that he did engage Miss TANNER,
and SO the jury, upon their oaths, have found.
j He admits that he consented that il
might be stated to Miss TANNER that it was
contemplated to open school," If the de-
PENDANT did not want a teacher why did he
want such statement made to her? sup
pose Mr.. and Mrs. Waikiki are people Of
common sense, and are possessed Of common
intelligence, at least. Does any one suppose
for q moment, that they would send for q
friend, and direct her to come Eve or six
hundred miles, without any stronger assur-
anccs Of a situation than that? Common
sense would teach any one better. Mrs.
WALkuP has sworn that the defendant d.
Iected her to write to Miss TANNER to come,
and he would wait for her until she came or
they heard from her. d Mr.. WALKuP testified
that he informed the defendant what had
been written to Miss TANNER, and he said he
directed tit was right, and he would wait
two weeks for her, and if she came within
that me she could have the school; and the
jury, as men Of common sense, found this to
be the truth. Yet the gentleman has the
audacity to say he did not engage Miss TAN
NER. Does he mean to charge those witnesses
and the jury with perjury and does he ex-
pcct the people to believe he is right, and
every body else wrongg The clergy are en-
titled to some consideration on account Of
their profession; but it would be well for him
to remember that it is quite possible for a
jury, and the public, to decide that even a
minister may be wrong. He says The de-
fcndant had no school to give" Why then
was the defendant inquiring at the Institute
which was held here, and also making propo-
sitions to teachers. if she had no school to
give?' and. if he had not engaged Miss TAN
NER, why did he state that he was not at lib
erty to let the basement until he heard from
a friend of Mrs WALKUP. at St. Paul? He
says - he offered Miss TANNER the basement
after she came, on condition that she could
teach what her friend recommended her to
do.'' have been informed by the attorney
dition of the offer as read to him by the de-
fendant: but that the defendant had ascer-
tanned from her that she taught all the higher
mathematics, but Geometry, and then, know
ing she did not teach it. offered her the school
if she could teach it, while at the same time,
and long before Miss TANNER came to town,
Mr.. HAMMOND had lease of the basement, ms
it was proven, he himself stated. Was this
offer made in good faith? or was it mere
technical quibbleY There can be no question
upon this point. It would be well for Mr..
PoRrERFIELD to bear in mind that he admitted
to the attorney for Miss TANNER, previous to
making the offer, that Mr.. HAMMOND had
rented the basement, and also that he rented
it long before he knew anything about Miss
TANNERS qualifications, except what he as
certaincd from Mrs. Waikiki; and in his let.
ter to Mr.. WALKuP, refusing the school, he
does not mention that Miss TANNER's qualifi.
cations are any different from what they
were recommended, nor does he state that as
a reason for refusing her the school. Mrs.
WALKuP testified than not one single branch
to be taught was mentioned by Mr.. PORTER
FIELD, and he had then offered to hire lady
who made no pretensions to teach anything
but common branches; yet, after he has
rented the basement and refused to have any
thing more to do with the school, he claim.
she offered her the school," have tn.
means Of knowing If any such offer had beer
made, it would have been readily accepted
for that was what Miss TANNER came here for
He asks, I" Did not the defendant offer K
leave the whole matter to two or three dis
interested meny'' think I can say with
truth he did not I am informed by Mis-.
TANNER, Mrs. WALKUP, and Mr.. JOHNSON
(the friend whom Mr.. PoRrERFIRLD took will
him to see Miss TANNER,) that. previous t.
the commencement of the suit Miss TANNEI
offered to leave the whole matter to four dis
interested men, to be chosen BY the parties
and their friends, and PoRTERrIELD utterly
refused to do SO; and am told by Miss
TANNERS attorney that atan interview which
H T4g =