Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1864-08-13

Communication from Mr. NewcOmO. re1ect
ing on the Vestry Of St. Luke's Parish. A
reply was prepared to it, but the editor oi
the Gazette refused to publish i. except on
/ conditions with which did not decn. j,
right to comply. Believing that defense
may be made in your paper, herewith
send the communication prepared for the
Guzstte. Z. L. Cook,
! '.I'hc ~. Lukc's Parish DissoI.s.
a6Om.s'
EDirog OF Under the above
heading, Mr.. u. I. Newcomb has commu.
nication in your issue of the 18th inst. |,
is i'll answer to s.atemtnt which, on the
4th inst. was given TO the public through
your columns, OF some of the reasons which
have led ~ the dissolution OF st. Luke S
Parish. In that statement was the follow
ins passage: 'He Mr.. Newcomb), indeed,
gave u verbal pledge that upon taking pos
session Of the property, he would release
the parish from all Its obligations to HIM.
When, however, he was subsequently ap-
piled to for such release, he declined to give
IT, az.
After bottling his wrath for more than q
week, Mr.. \. 5 yirtuous Indignation has tin
ally burst the bottle, and i'll his impoteu;
rage he besmears al. wnum he can reacl,
with its filthy contents. The perish is dis
solved, but as one OF Its former me,nbers
val make some comments upon his state
Inent, and out Of his own mouth shall he bc
condemned. Whether the statement OF the
ycstry is true or false is the question in
controversy, and by Mr.. Newcomb's own
words it can be shown that 1t was true. He
seeks to dodge the issue by referring to his
own generous actions,--the ingrat,tudc Of
The corporation, and by throwing dirt at its
individual members. After dlsposing OF
the main question at issue here, will briefly
notice the attacks the man makes upon his
bettcrs. Mr. n. says: About this time
one of the yestrymen asked lnc if ! would
release them from the judgment had
against them? My answer was, would at
some convenient time; but before i. was
accomplished MIR. Van Tuyl wished me to
assign said judgment to hlln, instead Of re-
leasing, as first contemplated alleging as
the reason why he desired the change, tnat
the vestry had recently came to the eonclu-
sion that it would be lar better, in iinan-
ci j poin: Of view for them not to DO so.
x - lreplicd Ihad NJ objection 10
obIige them, S,rortded 1t couid be dvue @.Tc!u.
add that would consider The matter and let
arc ogreed to 90 TO the Court Uyuse 70 accna.-
1,iish his wishes, and appointed an hour
when he should meet me at my house. lie
did not come; | went to the Court House
without him. and there learned Cd that If
4 ~.
mgscJ responsitie to Mr. v, or to any one
to whom ilc might assign the Judgment IN
question As 1 was leaving net Mr.. Y.
IN the Court House yard, ami told hun what
had learned. and further that bceyed it
WAS contemplated gin by the inttrested
par'y to s~tadfe nc, under the garb they
had assumed, and if that was ti..ir pro
gramme which had good reaion to believe.
woald neither assign, nor release my
claim, as contemplated.
Here Mr.. \. admits that he lid promise
to assign that Judgment, and had even APP.
pointed an hour with the authorized agent
Of the parish to fulfill his promise.
Now, see the miserable excuse ne puts for
ward to justify the violation oi his PROMISE.
lie says he learned at the court house he
''would be responsible &c.
In the first place. the assignor cf the judg-
ment would not bc responsible TO the as
signcc, and even if MIR. Newcon,b had
thought he would otherwise be liable, he
knew the words without recourse would
have protected him. But, as Ar. Newcomb
took time to consider he probably knew
his legal liAbility b.fore he went to the court
house.
What he means by his suspicious that
''the interested party would swindlc HIM,
cannot imagine. 1t is the obscure spot in
this othsrYis brilliant addition 10 our lit
cralure. Probably the true reason why Mr.. |
\. refused to assign the judgment was this:
At the time he promised to do SO, he sup
posed he could make nothing more from the
parish, but afterwards learning that it was
striving to pay its debts. he thought he saw
'sone more dollars there, and determined
to hang on.
As 70 his rigmarole about the Expensive
litigation" which is always source Of
g eat annoyance it costs money! tha
has nothing to do with this questio Ad-
init it, for the sake Of argument, that st.
Lukes Vestry did wrong, does that justif,
Mr.. n. in breaking his promise?
lie parades his generosity in giving the
parish the use Of the church after he hau
bought it. 1t was one Of those freaks o.
liberality on his part which can only be ac-
counted for by the fact that it cost nothing.
For the privilege of purchasing the prop
crty' from him, we are profoundly grateful
lie seeks to discredit our statement in tn,
Gasette that it was in consequence of his
declining to release, that we were compelled
to disorganize, and said we had before in
formed him that we intended to disband.
DC. 1t is true that at one time some mem
bers talked as Mr.. N. says, but when the
subject was brought up at large meeting
OF the male memOefs Of the congregation,
1t was voted to pay our debts, if possible,
and then disband; so voted on the strength
OF Mr.. Ms promise. A committee was
then appointed to effect compromise, and
as the writer of this was a member of it, h.
speaks from personal knowledge when he
says that had Mr.. n released his iudgmcn,
all other debts might have been arranged q,
a small figure, and the small amount o.
money necessary to pay them could p, oba
bly, have been raised. As to our carrying
the seeds Of inevitable dissolution, as wei.
as inevitable bankruptcy" with US from the
beginning, we can My say it is so; GU,
purse was not large enongh for Mr.. N.'s
greed. We can say that, alter making big
speculation out Of us, Mr.. Newcomb killed
our paaish by breaking his promise; as
monument over our remains he proposes
place his old judgment cancelled, latter
taxing my own time" We leave .stha,
same crit Using public to determine how
env'ao'e Mr.. Ms position is in this affair.
Z. 4. Cook.