Nebraska advertiser., 1868-02-06
Glen Rock IndlgnatIOn.s

Glen Rock IndigDatlOn.S
We print elsewhere the preamble ant
resolutions brought US by Mr.. Lull, Of
Nebraska City, and which. Mr.. D. Sny.
der writes Us, we're the important resO.
tiOns passed by a meeting Of the citizens
Of Glen Rock Precinct. We have seer
and read a full repOrto Of the proceedings
of this meeting in The Nebraska City
Press, and in our view there vas one
resolution Of the meeting not sent US
more Important than any that were sent,
tO.wit:
"On motion. it was ordered that the
above proceedings be published in the
Press, and that Mr.. Snyder procure for
distribution s~eventy,fve copies of the
same"
We have since seen Mr.. Culbertson,
the Secretary, and MIR. Reed, and they
both DECLARE that no such resolution was
passed.
We dare say that either Of the papers
in Brownville would have been glad to
have received the proceedings and to have
published them, and would have furnished
ali the extra papers desirable to The mem
bers of the meeting, and could have done
it as well and cbeaply as did the Press.
The resolutions passed by said meeting
are based upon a long preamble, com.
posed of six " w~hereases." Now, if i,
can be shown that the supposed facts re-
cited in the preamble are not true, then
all will agree that the resolutions which
follow are out Of place. Lei US see.
First whereas says the election was
held to see if the county would donate
S35O.GOO," etc. No, gentlemen, the
election was held to see if the county
would aid the construction Of the railroad
in that sum.
Second whereas says, " Notwi.hstand-
ing the unfair manner Of submitting said
question, it being For Railroad and
Against Railroad, Instead Of for issue
of bonds and against issue of bonds"
etc. Wrong again. The ballot was
" For bonds and tax" or " Against
bonds and tax" So, you viii conclude,
not unfairly submitted.
Third whereas says that GA majority
of the electors voted against said debt"
etc. This is begging the question. Who
are the " electors ?' Manifestly the
legally registered voters. The canvass
ers of The vote say there was forty ma
jorily of those in favor Of said /" bonds
and tax"
Fourth whereas says " The canvass
has been made against Us fraodulently
and c~orruptly, we firmly believe" You
may belierc it, and still be in error.
Fifth whereas says the County Com
m~issiOuers wilfuliy and c%orruplly apprO-
prialed $500 to defray the expenses Of
Fred. G. Holmes to, at, and from Wash
ington, to aid in procuring a grant of
lands 10 said go called Railroad Company
We admi! as true all except the wilful
corruption Of the act, of which we aver
that there is no proof that we have the
knowledge Of.
Sixth whereas says the Commissioners
Court, being of limited Jurisdiction, yet
they have set at naughh defed or strain
ed every wholesome enactment TO suit
the purposes Of said so.called Railroad
Company, elc. Now The said Court has
done bat two things in the premises
first, submitted the matter TO a vote Of
the people, as the law directs second,
appropriated the $500, and sent Holmes
to Washington. We leave the matter to
all disin;eres;ed parties TO say where the
straining in. The canvass Of the
Railroad vote was not made BY the
COmmissioRers-it was made as
the law directs.
Now, gentlemen, %candidly consider
The matter. Being mistaken in all the
important features of the case, would it
not be more reasonable TO investigate
more closely The matter, and first deter
mine whether you are no, deceived your
before you are dragged into this !,
BY men whose only object il is 10
defeat The railroad at all hazards. We
viii be with you when your grievances
are genuine and have a real foundation,
It IS equally our duty to oppose you
when wrong, and we do 1t as your friend
and welLwisher. /