Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-02-25
EEiIFTEES APPEAL
THURsDAY moRNINe, FEB. rs. Iseo.



The Memphis Post, Of yesterday even
ing, makes certain assertions in reply to
the editorial in yesterdays APPEAL,
which being OF q somewhat personal ns-
ture, would have been left for an answer
until the return Of Hr. HEATING, who
is now temporarily absent from the city
on business, had not Mr.. GEORGE R
RUrTER called upon US and made over
his own signature the following grave
issue and question of veraeity between
himself and the editors Of the Post:
In the article referred to the Post says:
We aIsosaid TO Mr.. Heating that long before
Mr.. Ruttsr was called TO Nashville, he had re-
peatedly a ked as why we did not taunt MI
Eeating with the money obtained by him
from the Tennessee National Bank; and that al
one time when the APPEAL had made Often
Eive reference t. The school fund swindle, Mr..
Rutter had showed US a letter calling upon the
editor OF the APPEAL 70 account for some six
thousand dollars which h 4 Rutterl said he in
tended 10 have published the APPEAL made
az further similar reference.
Mr.. RUTTER denOunces both allega-
lions here made as wiJlyUl and deliberate
lies. He denies that he ever showed any
letter, or made the remarks attributed
10 him.
Nj. RUTTER further states
LIST. That the editors Of the Post OBJ
tanned money from him to be used for
political purposes.
ID. That he (RUTTER) WAS induced to
take stock in the Post.
Sd. That he (RUTTER) paid EATON (of
the POST money for manipulating the Of
fairs Of the bank, and that he never re-
ceived the "scrstch of the pen" for
said moneys.
4th. The statement that Gen. JOHN
EATON received all the money which he
got from the bank in q legitimate com-
mercisl way, Is Jalse, Gen. EATON and
SPENCE having met him (RUrTER) At
Iuka Springs, and there both received
money from him, for which there. never
was a " scratch Of q pen mot given in
q /" commercial" way either.
5th. Mr.. HEATING obtained NO money
from the bank, except on endorsed
paper, and the accommodations extend
ed TO him were strictly o, 2 commercial
character.
These statements Mr.. RUTTER made
in presence Of witnesses, and also signed
his name 10 them. This, In u opinion,
relieves Mr.. HEATING OF anything fur
ther to say in the matter. In order,
however, that the public may know In
hew much the APPEAL has been con-
neeted with the School Fund swinGls,
we subjoin the following card Of Mr..
JOHN AINsLIE, proprietor and business
manager Of the APPEAL:
THE SCHOOL FUND.
The Evening Post OF Tuesday
contained an intimstion that some
body In the APPEALS neighbor.
hood knew something about $4,000
OF the School Fund. An answer
was made editorially to this insinustion,
aud 1 regret that 1t should have LEFT the
matter In such q shape that the Pos
could return to its -insinuatiOns. I have
been connected with tine APPEAL, In the
capacity Of Business Msnsger aud a;
proprietor, from February LIST, 1857, up to
the present time, and ! assert that the
statement, or inslnuation, that anyone
connected with this paper, either as pro.
prietor or employee, W received q dol
lar Of the ,hOol Fund, is s base, 1ci!fa
and deliberate JalseAood.
JOHN AISSLIE,
Proprietor and Business Manager Memphis
Appeal