Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1869-04-16

| - sSs 'SrnS6vSteso s"0 uUpuo Wucu
voted, for les skan tkeif face IL cash. Z
|
The Fsystts Unton 81 ihres ws6ks since
made the charge against Hon. w. B. Alli>
SON that b was in the pfseties Of going bail
for swind!ers, and endeavorcd to substan.;ate
it, BY citing Mr.. d. W. Hammond of this
place as having made public statements TO
that effect while in West Union. This Mr.. Ham.
ond through our columns promptly prosQpn.
csd . falsel.ood. Last week the Uujon
which evidently thisks that . lie will pass
current il well stuck to, retorns to the charge
in the following styie:
We heard Hammond 10 the Office of the
United States House on the svseiue Of the
18th Of March last, In the presence Of sever
81 parties, who ase rsady to testify to the
conversation, say that Mr.. Allison had ap>
proved and signed the bond Of one Ingalls,,
and the man johnson, who was bound over
BY Esq. Crosby u this place, for the crime
forgery. and another party, when they we're
arrested near St. Losis for the seed sower
swinding, and that the authorities there re.
fused TO accept the bond. The above 10 sob.
stantially the conversation which Ne will
testify to. The eonvcrsstioa was not adj
dressed to ~, but n other parties who will
testify TO the same thing. Now Mr.. Bxlle>
tin, publish the shove, and let NJ Hans
,nond deny i, If be dsres.
But while the Union 10 thus blatently de-
flying Mr.. Hammond, proof Of III mendacity
comes from another and entirely unexpect>
ed quarter. Tie following statement from
the West Unios Gazette may veil relieve
Mr.. Hammond from the psssasisy Of f.uher
denisl, while II the same tnhe, X shows the
slight ground upoa which the Unions charge
against Mr.. AiIisoa rests:
The Union, in i,s issue Of last week, with
its usual gard for trntb, charges xr. Alli>
son with having become one Of the bonds.
man Of Ingalls, and johnson, who were ar
rested near St. Louis, on The charge Of swim.
ding. Mr.. Hammond, whom the Union
gives as authority for making the charge,
cenies, in the Independence Bslletin, having
said anything Of the kind, and the Union,
in its last issue, reiterates its previous
charge, and proceeds to abuse NJ. Ham.
mond. From . statement made 10 US By
the gentleman with whom Mr.. Hanmond
was conversing at the time this subject was
discussed, We are led 10 the belief that the
editor of the Cnion either misunderstood
Mr.. Hammsud, or else 10 wilfal misrepre.
sents what that gentleman stated. The
facts, ~ related 10 NJ, are ~ follows: Two
gentlemen in Dubuque had signed The bail
Of Ingalls, and Johnson, and they being un>
known to the st. Louis authorities, cert:6>
cate that they vera responsible for the
amount of the bonds Was required, and Mr..
Allison, being gentleman OF national rep
utation, vas requested 70 make such certif.
icste, which be did,. Our iafornant was
particular to ask Mr.. Hammond ifhe meant
that Mr.. Allison became one Of the bonds
men, when Mr.. Hammond replied emphat-
cally that he did not mean anything Of the
kind. So much for the Unions statement.
acter il shoul6 b careful that there are no
witnesses to prove it fals6er.
po, =. nr,,.e,, - L1Es
IxDEPExpExcE Arr. IL, 1889.
MR. J. L. L. OKLA,
Ny Dear Sir:-It is due to both
the editor and tho readers Of this. paper,
not nesdlessly 10 ptoleAs Mis- cosr~pon>
deoce. Had you not introduced new mat.
ter in your last letter, might hare added
nothing. will use a. few words - will
serve me.
You speak Of what Jon call my "advoca.
cy Of license, and condemnation Of prohibit.
ary laws in the same sermon "-You declare
that | proposed to legalize crime BY licen>
sing it, VIZ
Ifcallias IN question The effectiveness Of
"prohihitory legislation" - called. that 10
laws Tie idsa Of which i, - ! explained, 70
"cure intemperance By making il iupossi>
bic is . condemnation Of prohibi.ory laws,
then condemned them. As to License
the word, the idea, the ssggestios i not in
the sermon. do not believe in License.
cannot support it. II laws connsnding
my approval thsrs would b 10 couutsnance
and moral suPpost given to the ordinary
traffic in intoxicating liquors BY special al>
lowa.ce. would put the trade under The
frown Of law, encambsr il, tax it, distress it
no. seeking the impossible, snnihilation,
but limitasts~ 10 -shs- greassst practicable
degree. A said il the sermon you heard
-" Whatever nay b The fact y % the
soundness Of the principle Of prohibitory le>
gisls,ion, il . doubtful whether in the pres.
ens state Of society, Law can wisely attempt
more than to load the traffic 10 intoxicating
liquors with Is heavy burdens - is practica.
bic, and holding it 70 . strict accountability
for the psuperism and The crime Of which il
is the occasioa. The common sense and the
moral sense Of the community would 60
with the laying upon the traffic The burden
Of the paupsrisu Vt which il i the occasion;
and this, with the Underestimate sale,
would surely be . load few men would care
10 beas." SsS.SH 81 Ga sss
Thess two sentences contain er<sy cord
I spoke BY Ny ofisdicating my views - to
The most productive. sui therefore most de-
,ir.ble style Of Law. Arc you surc that /
proposed TO legalise cpme BY licensing III"
Is i. in The nassrs Of = wsstsra mind " to
hear in % comical manner? Will ron
now say" The preacher is responsible for
tho i'm presious made by the uss Of words aud
not for the words .hemsslvcs?' Intelligence
ny dear sir is the s'fl u God--csudor tho
growth Of u noble character.
. ettf y .csF s-ss! gsFat