The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-12-18
Lorenzo Again.

10 us puDllcallon Hau Deen oDlalNeu Dy
us. Mr.. B., however, finally reconsid-
cred his decision, and refused to insert it,
We are therefore compelled to again open
up the subject in our own columns
Mr.. BARNHART Il am constrained,
by sense of duty to myself, to ask the
privilege of a short space in your col
umns. l do not expect to trouble you
or your readers with heightened per-
sonal controversy, undoubtedly uninter-
esting to you and to them, however i'm
portant it may seem to Mr.. Moore and
myself; and shall not, probably, deem
it necessary to renew the request l now
make of you. My reason for troubling
you now is this Mr.. Moore seems well
to appreciate the fact that charges and
statements made through channel
where denial and refutation is not suffer
ed to pass, must find believers, and must,
consequently, fulfill their intended office
of creating prejucice, however ground.
less or false they may be. Thus you
will notice that in the controversy with
myself, he has carefully avoided repeat
ing the language of my charges and de-
malls, with the evident intention of with
holding from your many readers who dc
not see the Guardian, the nature of those
charges and denials. Thus, when he
charged me with drunkenness and row.
dyism on the night of the lnvincible
Ball" and | showed that l was not out
of the house on that night, he simply re-
plies that he did not mean me erclu.
siyely, but the Wide Awakes," which
gives no indication of my reply, and does
not release me from the charge-ac charge
basely false, made against me as to any
time. Thus, too, in making his PROPOSE
ton of betting, he gave no indication oil
the nature of The offer had made to
him. | might extend these instances far
Their, and also show how he placed ex-
pressions in my mouth that | in no sense
used. But the proposed limits of my
article will not admit.
The same villainous intention to place
me in false light before your readers, |
felt assured, would prevent him from no.
ticing the offers | made him in the in
terview at his office, and his article in
your last paper shows / was not mista-
ken. In that he entirely negleots to no.
tice the fact that ! offered TO bet him
S25 on his proposition, and says moth
ing about any proposal of mine except
an indefinite proposition to pay BLANK
dollars to some bell committed" and an
other proposition to deposit money in
hands of some person where it would be
subject to your (my) control" Your
readers would never suppose, from this,
that | had offered Mr. Moore S25 for
the evidence which he says he has
against me on the frivolous matter IN
controversy. Nor did he intend that
they should. He intended that they
should gain the impression that shrunk
away entirely from the issue, and refused
to do anything towards testing the ques-
ton in controversy between us. This
impression he also tries to foster by most
unblushing lies about the interview.
But, fortunately, | had guarded
against this. knew well that il | went
alone and attempted a settlement of this
matter with Mr.. Moore, | should have a
score of his lies and misrepresentation
TO answer afterwards. For that reason
endeayored to put the matter liz the
hands of friends. This he would not
consent to. l determined, however, to
have witnesses at the interview, and they
were present, and thus am enabled to
meet his falsehoods with unpreludiced
testimonv-with the declarations of men
whose words will at any time, in this
community, outweigh Mr. Moore's oath
Here is copy of the testimony of Mr.
Ingalls, and Mr.. Donnan
| We have read the account of the interview
! between Mr. Rich and Mr. Moore, ms published
| IN the CictttdR of last week, and in Justice to
! Mr.. Rich must declare that it contains gross
| perversions of facts. Mr. Moore says that he
reduced the amount of his bet one half This
is not strictly true He made two propositions
and wanted TO bet 500 on each. The contro-
versy was simply on one of these propositions,
and the other had no particular bearing upon
it. There was no reduction upon the PROPOSE
ton in contest, but only relinquish ment of
his second proposition. This view of the mat
ter was urged upon Mr. Moore by Mr.. Rich and
| ourselves.
MI moore also says that Mr.. Rlch peremp-
torily refused TO confront the ladies from whom
the testimony was expected TO come. This is a
most astonishing assertion Mr.. Rich repeatedly
assured Mr.. Moore that he pontd confront them
that lie desired to do so, and even went so far
as TO offer Mr.. Moore money guarantee that he
would do SO. He, however, urged that the bet
ter way to get the testimony was TO have it Civ
en- to friends unnhuenced by the presence of
either party. But he in no sense made this an
Indispensable condition Of the bet and assured
Mr.. Moore ulat he should not make il such a
condition.
Mr.. Moore likewise says that Mr.. Rich pro
posed to deposit the money In the hands Of some
person where it would be under his control
This is also Misrepresentation When Mr..
Rich proposed To increase his offer 10 S25, he
also proposed 10 deposit the money in the hands
of Mr.. Thomas, Mr.. Leavitt or Mr. Taylor, who
were present, or in Bartle's Bank, or in the
hands of Mr.. John III. Campbell, or wherever
Mr.. Moore desired that il should be put There
was no controversy at all upon this point.
Mr.. Moore also states that when his PROPOSE
ton was presented to Mr.. Rich, the hitter re-
jeeted it with the query 80 do you think | am
God damned fool enough 10 sign such thing
Us that Y We do not recollect Of Mr.. Rich
making such reply, but We distinctly reeolcct