Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1861-11-25

WASHINGTON, ID. C., Nov. IS, 1S6

WARRINGTON, IL. u, NOV. %, lcol
W. ID. Wdlldch, Esq:
SIR AS nv name appeared in the Star and
other Washington papers, recently, In a connec-
ton not very creditaDle to me, feel 1t to be
to my friends and acquaintances, residing here
and elsewhere, to state few facts, and make
few comments in reference 70 the proceedings
had In my case in the Board of Aldermen, Oct.
2lst, 2Sth, and Nov 9TH and 11th.
At the meeting Of the Board of Aldermen, Oct.
2lst, F. ID. Stuart was nominated by the mayor
one Of the Board Of School Trustees As is
customary, the nomination, with others, was re-
ferred to the proper committee, and laid over for
a week. October 18th, among other business,
the Board Of Aldermen acted upon the nom
tons for school trustees, which had been reported
on by the proper committee, and F. ID Stuart
was unanimously rejected-eleven IN votes be
Ing cast, and not one word having been uttered
as 10 the cause Of rejection. November 4th, Mr..
Sargent, one Of the aldermen from the 5th ward.
moved a reconsideration Of the vote by which
F. ID Stuart had been rejected, which motion
was unanimously adopted, and-the nomination
was referred back to the committee. On the l1Ih
November, the proper com mittee, represented by
Mr.. Magruder, reported back Mr. Stuart's nomi-
nation as school trustee, and said ''the committee
find his character so good that they recommend
bis confirmation
After considerable discussion, Mr. Stuart was
confirmed, twelve C12J voting in favor, and one
(1) against, Mr. Fisher being the absent men,
Der. With these facts stated, the enquiry may
well be made what gave rise to the difficulty!
And why the rejection, reconsideration, and con-
frmation,
To many Of Mr. stuart's friends there was no
mystery In the proceedings OF the Board ofAlder-
men-no enigma TO be solved. Between the
Aldermen from tie Fourth (4tb) Ward Mr. Moore,
and Mr.. Stuart there existed, and bad existed
for some time, bitter hostility not Of political
or religious nature Ii was sufficient, however,
to induce Mr.. Moore to every N cans In his
power to have Mr.. Stuart rejected and II posi-
BILE, to blast his character in the community
Perhaps the offence Mr. Stuart had given MIR
n ted 10 N hut no
employed were cowardly and ungentlsmanly
Mr.. Moore's acts may admit of some justification
az sold ctiz Of the Fourth (4th) Ward" called
on him, Mr.. Moore) before the nominations for
school trustees had been made, and gave him
(Hr Moorei two names which he, 1.-THE citzen)
said would probably he sent in. and told him
(Mr Moore) ''to look to them -
Ard Mr.. Moore did look TO them In his own
peculiar way. He took the trouble TO call on Mr.
Magruder, chairman Of the Committee on Pub
lie Schools, and, among other accusations, as
mans" This may have been all that was said
to the alderman from the first (lst) ward, but
other members Of the board were also enlig bten-
ed as to Mr. Stuart's character. Mr.. Sargent was
told that Mr. Stuart was 'too often at Kloman's;''
that che was guilty of tipping" Mr. Semmes
was Informed that Mr.. Stuart made "Kloman's
his headquarters" And thus the poison was
disseminated. To the unbiased and intelligent
mind 1t must be evident that the source of the
Information upon which the Board acted on the
18th October, can easily be traced to the man who
been said by Mr. Moore to the contrary notwlth-
standing.
With such report, from sxch reliable midi
vtdnGI-oHs tcho had HsrsT been kHot0H TO utter an
EatTEth, or diSSsnble for a moment, dHTIng a
long, rIrtEoKS and rsTy ESefHllUe,-it is no Won
der that the gentlemen composing the Board of
Aldermen should have so summarily disposed of
Mr.. Stuart. But the action Of the Board, on the
18th October should not be called ga snap judg-
ment''-it was righteous decision. MI. MOore's
object had been accomplished. He had Partaken
week, had rolled the sweet norsel under bis
tongue. Little did he dream Of a re-considera-
ton, nor did he think that the name Of the indi-
vidual whom he believed had been consigned to
Teproach, and morally killed, would, like Ban
quo's ghost, appear In that sacred council cham
Der, with the finger Of scorn pointing out the
midnight assassin. Mr.. Moore 'knew he would
get the credit Of it' (Mr. stuarts rejection) but
pose bis Pusillanimtty. He ''did not expect that
to come from the gentleman from the first Clsp
ward" He bad forgotten that " the best laid
schemes o'mice a NJ men gang an a.gley."
Mr. Moore ''did nor dSSiTs 10 do Mr. Stuart
any harm.n oh, no In speaking to Mr.. Ma
gruder, and other me mbers Of the board, about
Mr. Stuart, he only said that che had seen Mr..
enter KIoman's freq uently,' qualifying the
mark, subsf uently, by admitting tt at he "sonle-
times saw him there'-he had seen shin GO into
Romans" Mr., Moore did not give az a reason
that "because gentleman goes to Kloman's for
ale and oysters he IL unfit TO be school trustee, ;"
Except In this case, though, as he (Mr. Moore,)
said, ''some lunshed there; others loafed there y"
He "drew the distinction" Mr.. Moore 'had
reasons, hethoug bit good ;" for Directing to Mr..
Stuart. He "had personal difference with
him"
Fortunately the members OF the Board Of Alder
men, having perfectly understood what Mr..
Moore had said about Mr.. Stuart, did not regard
his mr.. MoOre's) personal objections to him (Mr
Stuart) as valid reasons for his rejection Nor
were they willing to permit Mr. Stuart to rest un,
der the imputation so insidiously msde by the
senior Alderman from the fourth (4th)ward. After
Investigation, Mr.. Bohrer satisfied that sin
justice had been done Mr.. Stuart" Mr.. Sargent
said. "the Board had been deceived" he twas
satisfied great injustice had been done that gen.
teman"-(Mr SIuart,) he "believed the charge
against him was untrue" Mr.. Nagruder had
voted to reject Mr.. Stuart, son Information he
supposed to be reliable.n
"That information came from the senior Alder
man from the Fourth (4th) Ward, (Mr. Moore)
and IL bad been controyerted " Mr.. Semmes had
been told "that he, MIR. Stuart, made Kloman's
his headq quarters. He was now satisfied that he
was misinformed l." MIR Brodhead had been
called on by men Of the highest standing in rela-
ton TO the matter, and ''was now satisfied the
Board had done wrong" Mr.. Richards made
similar statements and took the same view.
Mr.. Fisher, who was absent VIII n the final vote
was taken. believed him Mr.. Stuartl to be very
faithful, and that he would make a good Trus.
tee "a Mr.. LLOYD denounced the course pursued by
Mr.. Moore, and ably defended Mr.. stuart against
the foul espersions made by the pseudo modern
censor. And finally, MIR. Moore has himself made
a confession which, In view Of all circumstances
Of the case should, In the opinion Of many admir-
ers Of truth, be made known to the public. The
| following correspondence will explain itself.
$40 wAsHINeroN, d. C., Nov Is, 1861
VIM. w. MOORE, ESQ -Su:-During discus
| sion In the Board Of Alderman, In which was
interested, on last Monday evening, according TO
the ''Stas" Of Tuesday. you made use Of the fol-
lowing language: "some lunched there (refer.
ring to Kloman's), others loafed there" "He
(you) drew the distinction 4" desire to be In
| formed whether you intended to convey the Idea
to the Board OF Alderman, that loafed at Klo-
mans or elsewhere. -
Respectfully, &C.,
/ -~ FRED. d. STUART.
e.. WAsHIHGToN, Nov. 10, 1851.
FRKp. D. STUART: ,rt -.H.s.a
Sni--In reply to your note Of YESTERDAY. re-
ceiyed ts-day,I state that the words, ''some
lunched there, others loafed there," which You
cite from report representing In part what oc-
CURED in the Board Of Alderman on Monday
| last were not designed to individualiIe either
YOU or the house 70 which You refer.
L Respectfully, 90, WIN. w. MOORE.