The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1872-04-26

the Legislature of 1868, and by ret
orence to the journal OF that ses-
sion, we get correct knowledge of
the whole matter. In his "open
letter" Crawford mixes the transac-
ton about the section of land which
the railroad company transferred
TO him, with other land that he pur-
chased, and we suppose paid for.
But the land we refer to is the GAO
acres which the railroad company
gave him. BY reading the testi-
mony of tina: investigation we find
a few interesting facts. The major
ity of the committee reported to
the effect that there did not seem to
be any direct "bargain and sale" in
this transaction, but from the evil
dence We conclude there was an I'm
Outstanding that Crawford was to
have the land, and we cannot help
but believe his self-sacrificing eff
forts in behalf of the railroad COM
pany brought him the section of
land. In this evidence we find that
Crawford's services were required
six or eight weeks; that there were
two different commissions appoint
ed, and that Crawford was on both
of them, the railroad company
sticking to him that the other COM
missioners reported against accept
ing the road; Crawford made q
minority report. and visited Wash
ingtOn, st. Louis and Chicago in the
interests of the company, leaving
the Governors Office to run itself
for several weeks; that no other
commissioner observation-disclosures
one of them lived in Connecticut.
and was allowed ten cents Il mile
for travel-over $500; that Craw-
ford did not charge the company
anything for per diem and milage ;
that he took his'n in land that $40
acres of land were decided to him ;
that land in the vicinity of that
received by him had previously
sold for $50 an acre; that several
witnesses swOre the land was worth
$50 an acre when he received it..
We take the liberty of inserting the
testimony of Wilson Shannon, Jr. !:
I reside at Lawrence and am an attor-
ney. / am now and have been one OF the
trustees OF the Delaware lands. Some
time last spring there was q deed made by
the railroad company to Governor CraW-
ford Tor $40 acres of land in Jefferson
county. Our land books show that in
July, 1866, this piece OF land was bonded
TO Governor Crawford, the consideration
being stated ut 81 600, and under the head
Of remarks il is stated: "1hiS land tcdS
1ireR in consideration Of SerUlces render
ed the railroad company" / was acting
as trustee when the deed was made, and
neuer got any money for 1t. know the
land; and at the time of the transaction 1t
was worth at least $40 per acre. The
Governor and l have had two or three
conversations about this matter. He told
me he had done such and such things for
the road, and that his seruIceS Ioere toOrth
about one Thousand dollars, and that he
ought to have made out a bill and had the
company allow 1t, and had IL turned in as
q consideration for the land. He spoke
about having US allow the bill and send 1t
through to st. Louis. told him we could
do no such thing; If the company thought
proper to do so, they could, and the matter
stands that way now.
We might give other testimony,
but space will not admit it now.
Let us see if we make our point on
this land matter. Crawford had q
bill against the company for $1,000
as the officer of the road testifies !;
but we will take his figures and say
it was S1,130. In liquidation of
that bill the company gave him $40
acres of land, worth, according to
several competent witnesses, $50
per acre-total, $12,SC0. Set down
to the credit of the amount made
by means of the position the Repub-
liean voters gave him, S1l,67O We
leave the public to judge of his
great honesty ia this matter, and
the truth of our assertion that he is
rather ungrateful in raising the cry
of corruption against the party
which did so much for him.
In Kansas politics we have most of
the time opposed the political leaders,
and in casting about for man whom
we thought the most worthy and hon
est, we have generally supported this
man Crawford. We did so because we
thought he had integrity. We always
knew he was weak In the upper sEorys
and had unbOunded vanity. From the
time he was nominated by Jim Lane
in 1864 until the close of the Senatorial
contest in 1871, we did him valuable
and effective service. He has told US
so many times, and we can prove that
hra 40 fE1a al Fafk n al N ~
what he says in his s'open letter." We
can certify that whenever he has been
a candidate, (Which was every time he
has had an opportunity in the last eight
years) he has strongly desired our pres
ence ut conventions or in legislatures
where he was asking favOrs. His
statements in his "open letter" and
those when he was begging our sup
port do not correspond very well. He
can reconcile them as he pleases. We
would not give a nickel for his opinion
one way or the other. He is 4 played
out Office seeker, and nobody cares for
him. He cannot now and never could
control a hundred votes in and of him
self. All the position he ever had was
given TO him by the work of others.
All he can do is to set in his Office and
look wise. In this he is distinguish
ed statesman.
We have often been told that his
only distinguishing characteristic as
everybody who befriended him
wneneYer he got q chance. He
even now SANDERS the memory of
Lane, his political benefactor, and
the man who made him walk the
"chalk line" while he was living.
We were frequently warned by
friends when we were unselfishly
doing all in our power to further
his political interests, that he would
abuse US as soon as he got our vote.
This we did not believe, but it has
proven true. Ever since the Soma
torial election of 1871 he has vilified
US by telling that we sold him out.
He has made this charge without
any cause or foundation. He has
not the shadow of evidence that we
did. We worked for him faithfully
up to the time the last vote was ia
ken. We defy him to prove to the
contrary. We can furnish him TWEEN
ty or thirty members of the legisla-
ture who will sustain this assertion
hACn We "OAO ONOA
day and night, and we do not be-
lieve he can furnish the first word
of evidence to the contrary. We
should like to know what it is if he
can. 1t won't do for him to deal in
innuendoes in this matter. Ills be-
liefs are not evidence, and should
not be taken as such. He owes it
to the public TO prove it on US il he
can. IF he cannot prove it he owes
us an apology for slandering US.
OF course we de not expect him to
make the apology, even if he knows
his charge is false. Crawford has
not got soul enough to be fair. He
is too selfish and vain for that. He
cannot lay his defeat to US. 1t was
his lack of brains that defeated him.
we have been told by many of the