The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1873-12-26
Reply to Mr. Smith.

Mr.. ~EDiTOR-TTaye!cr has at last been forced
olt of his Shrl!, EAd in your last Issue rcpub,
li-hos his institutions against me, over hi- own
! signsturc, and -ay- h" writes this la,t letter FOL
my benefit. | think it i very much 10 my ben.
eft tina, The people should know who is making
these charges. He, in hi- last letter, j. driven
to the extremity of the bar assertion thu, hc has
heard that there was "a rcr1dF order Of The County
Court requiring me to sue o. rrosecutc the rail
rosd cpn,.lny. 1t Is said that drowning men
VIII cI:cI II -ttavs; 80 ihi, gentleman i,sD
compelled to rely wholly upon IN ab-urdity-a
raf5dl orIrr-iu support 81 his cEITy,- against
me, and hL,rl upon hoa.sIy cv.I ne nj .Eaf.
\ verbal oder 81 Nc County Court not entered
rfon the record Is void and OF ne hiHuI ( force,
and Mr. Smith virtually admit This ny saving,
IT can creep "i' Of II by = iec!I!i"ality OF HE
law, am ] any the lces to hiiin - Then,
according 10 h- logic, | an not LEGALLY guilty. OF
neglec'ing Inr dn'y, bu; morally gun ). Lit rs
see whether ! mn either legal, or mpially gull
~. Although II verbal oitler 10y atugu!y Court
would have no binding force ur give any au-
ll,oTily, there might he Instances IN which they
could make u verbal oIdrr aud il he voluntarily
carried into effect, and NJ adv Iniugr taken al IL;
such. for Instance, a. an individual could a.
anime Il road AMI say " nat work should bc done
ana even siiit"rIHicni the wGTk: bur there l. "A
vast difference between that and an order 10
commence Il suit against II railroad cpinuauv or
an Individual about Il matter Of IA much i'm
p0rtancr, ~ he would have lis briicyc this 10 be,
for the reason hat nc are governed "a court By
technical rule, Uf ll@. II the t9anty Count ever
male a rrfsIi order TO the effect that | should
sue the railroad company, | was never notified
OF 1t, nor did ii ever CONE To- my knowledge,
except through Mr.. smiths letter., which 1 d.,
not derm sufficiently authentic TO warrant me in
commencing u snit and ti- assertion that | knew
such an order had been miir, ir false.
10 SUN the whole matter mp, there is no order
OF record requiring me 10 commence suit against
The railroad cOTpany; that if there was u verbal
order Ia that effect maiir and not ;ut On record.
D WAS rOII and not bindin" on any oar; So Thai
! nm not legally gully. Further. if there WA
such IA verbal order mad" | was never notified of
IT, n"r did IL ever ZONE 10 niy knowledge; ihrn |
ain no; morally guilty. Then | think It can be
very easily seen thai there il no raj foundation
Whiir'rr for the charge OF ''Ialpab!e negii-
gence or WORSE
i: Is ALWAYS a plea surc to mr. 80 do VI hat | con-
ceiyc To be NV duty, both ofIicialiy and individ-
uaily, and ! a:n SATISFIED in my own mind, and |
believe the people ARE satisfied. that I Tried 10 do
what was right IN regard to t.is m,il"r. II am
guiiiy OF ''paiplble negligence or worse, there
IS a proper Recourse, and that docs NOT seem 10
me To be TO rIsi into pTilt with intangible criey-
ance-; ] ihtik l have fully answered his charg-
Is anu liiAinili'IuIs, AMI made all The statements !
IN this ana my i"rner letters that tbs matter de-
hcINee, ana i do not prDlp-c 10 have "a personal
nv Paper controversy, nor 10 / wish 10 argue
WIN M smith, As 10 his ''undersIandlng'S or |
ueins informed, or ''supposition,o or
d. would have bceDs," &c, but All that dcsire
Is that the people may fairly understand The faris
cannot but think, however, Mr. Editor. thai !
1ravcier,' alias Oscar Smith. i. pov,rT,d
more BY private malice, than by an Interest in
public g2oi; his actions certainly show that.
This IS all desire to say. Yours, very res
pectuuly, q. 7. BRYAN.