Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1866-02-01
EYANsyILLE. Jan. 80. 1866.


asE - -
sa EyASsyILLE, Jan. 80, 1866.
TO the Citizens Of EpansUille:
In the JOURNAL of this morning is an
ITO article over the signiture Of John Ingle,
jr., in which he says:
80 The question upon which you are to
vote appears to be, in substance: Will
taxpayers, by their vote, authorize the
City Council 10 issue city bonds at 7
per cent, to the amount of $3.50, 900 to
set of men-strangers to them-called
a new company" who appear only by
AS Col Jones as their attorney, and who
propose, if the city don't voluntarily is
sue these bonds, to recover them by law
as a debt already due them ss the sue
eessors of the concern known as the
straight Line Railroad Company" and
who also propose, if the city voluntarily
hands over these bonds to them, not
only to pay, themselves, the old debt,
which they claim to be recoverable by
:, law, but to give the city the benefit of
the old Straight Line Railroad grade,
asand, furthermore, to do all in their
~ power to assist the city and all others
who may subscribe stock in the concern,
in building a. railroad to the Ohio a.
K0l Mississippi Railroad, thus giving the
city a broad gauge railroad from Evans
1a0sville 20 Cincinnati, provided, always,
that the money can be raised to build it.
n = -" This is the whole question, as have
learned from the speeches and written
"a. articles Of Col Jones, Attorney for I" the
,r-if New Company" e.
.hi "This il remarkable proposition, the
most remarkable / have ever known to
L. Al H. .t.~-.k I'll g.. - a.,
Yof the people, and / fearlessly assert that
it is nothing more nor less, whatever
may be Col. Jones opinion of it, than an
attempt to transfer q controversy be-
tween certain spectators and the city
of Evansville for the recovery of these
same bonds, from the courts of law
nc where they know they will be beaten, to
vote of the people, where, as they put
the case, they have very slight hopes of
winning know that without treachery
or foul play on the side of the city In
this controversy, the city and the tax
payers are safe in the courts, where the
II controversy has for years been, pending,
and where, over and over again, the
questions have been decided in favor of
es s the city" aaass8a q agTssa
I shall reply to this very briefly, and
only for the purpose of showing Mr.. In
giles recklessness and want Of candor
=. in assuming certain facts to be true, and
asserting them as truths, when they have
no foundation in fact, and to satisfy the
people that under the constraint i'm
posed by his interests as an officer and
a stakeholder, and by the millionaire
who virtually owns the Evansville &
Charlottesville Road and the Terre
al Haute & Indianapolis Road, he is will
a. ha0 ri to4f f0V. aost
by asserting, Willingly or unwittingly,"
certain things to be true, which are ut
terly false and without foundation. The
Council, notwithstanding the vote of the
people, may provide as they think best
= ~ for the safety and proper use of the
money or bonds If, by their order, any
money Or bonds shall be issued or paid,
they viii be under the control of the di-
81 Yectors Of the railroad company Now,
let tho reader examine the first fifteen
or twenty lines of the above extract,
and then see who are the directors of
the New Company" strangers of
whom Mr.. Inele speaks. They are Viii.
liam Baker, William Heilman, John J.
Chandler, Asa IgIehart, Blythe Hynes,
IS Conrad Baker, and Henry c. Gwathmey
--Conrad Baker, President; James G
- Jones, Secretary, Is it likely that any
enter into the fraudulent scheme sug-
gested by Mr.. Ingle 2 If SO, it is time
that the Evansville & Charlottesville
Railroad Company should GUST him and
= pay "a 900 salary to better man, for
each of them was endowed by nature
with as much sense as he has--their
III acquirements are at least equal to his,
and not one of them need hesitate to in
stitute a comparison between his char.
aeter and Mr.. Ingle's, for candor and
z honesty. tstJ e
/ am not the attorney of the "new
company" but lis Secretary. am not,
nor have / ever been, the attorney of
any natural person or corporation In re-
iation to the old subscription to the
stock of the Evansville, Indianapolis
and Cleveland Straight Line Railroad
Company, except that, in the beginning
OF the controversy between the city and
.a that company, ! was employed by the
city az its attorney, and from that time
.si to this | have been opposed to the collec.
ton of that old subscription for the
benefit of foreign creditors and bond
holders, and l Intend to faithfully con-
,rs tinue that opposition; but am endeav-
oring to effect a compromise under
which the city, by subscribing a similar
leased from the old subscription and
secure the completion of the road s.
In relation to the proposed subscrip-
~ tion to the stock of the new company, l
am not the attorney of any person. Mr.
Ingle did not learn from my speeches |
and written articles what he says he
did, nor anything that could be dstort-
ssnl ed into such meaning, except by one
who has adopted the maxim that "tLe
end justifies the means and is wicked
Iusa ly bent upon traducing others to any
extent that may be necessary to accom-
plish the ends OF those whose bidding he
must heed, or forfeit bis fat Office. Mr..
IngIe insinuates the possibility of
sstreachery or foul play on the side of
the city in the controversy relating to
the old subscription Who will be guilty
~ W OF 1.-THE Council, the Mayor or the At
torneys2 ~
How the Mayor and Councilmen may
relish this insiDnation, do not know.
My only connection with that contro-
versy has been as the attorney of the
city, and were convinced that my char
acter for integrity in the practice of my
profession would suffer by comparison
with Mr.. lngle's, l would promptly take
measures 10 go on to the spirit land"
and avoid the modification of witness.
ing his pre-eminence. 30
,.ss Mr. Ingle says, that for years, the con.
froversy has been pending in the courts,
nwhere, over and over again, the ques-
I lions raised have been decided in favor
of the city"
The facts are that the railroad COM
pany sued the city, and the case was
FIRST tried some seven years ago, when