The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1874-11-27
OPEv LETTER. No. '.


the people Of Lincoln county in the Is
sue Of the INTERIOR Journal Of the
10th ult. lie predicates the necessity
If respouse upon an apprehension
that thoss who do not kncr him might
coustrus his silence into an admission
Of the charges | have brought against
him from which it appears that he Is
ONLY solicitous in respect Of the opin-
ions Of strangers, and totally inditcr-
ent as to the conclusions the people of
his own county may form. lie is
surely too modest TO intimate thot his
reputation Is so Immaculate that il can
not he affected bv anything ! may
say. supported as ! am by the record Of
his own csurt.
Avering, as have heretofore done,
that this controversy is not Of nv
seeking, nor consonant to my taste, !
nevertheless propose, again in an open
communication, TO vindicatc the truth
Of my charges against MIR. l.ytle, and
to assure him, that however averse |
my be to unpleasant controversies, |
.hsll not stop short Of, if need he,
producing such testimonials As will
carry conviction NOT only to tAe stranger
whose appreciation he covets, but to
the acquaintance whose good opinion
he spurns.
| notice the points (?) in his
letter (or more properly speaking, per-
haps, his apology) to the people Of
Lincoln county, not in the order he
chooses to present them, but rather in
the order IN which reference was made
to the same matters in my former let.
ter.
In attempting to excuse his ill-trcat-
ment of me in his office on the occas-
ion referred to, he admits his invitation
to me to walk into his Office to settle a
matter Of c)ntra-accounts subsisting
between us, and says he had no thought
of using "even any hard language
until the settlement was made. but
that "in a conversation which then
ensued the matter came up and in
talking tn me about my course to-
wards him, he ''did use strong Ian
guage" towards me. Pray, what mat
ter came up, and who brought it up!
Who introduced the conversation up
on any matter which was calculated to
result in harsh language?
He does not so much as indirectly
deny the version heretofore given by
me. nor in fact does he deny in ex-
press terms or by fair inference any
statement on the subject that | have
made, except to say that he did not
fasten e,e door or use or manifest any
force ,rhaterer towdrd n,e. His denial
in this particular is in keeping with
his whole course of conduct on that
occasion. But his denial presents an
issue Of veracity between us, as to the
door being fastened, and in so far as he
assumes to say that his conduct and
general demeanor did not indicate any
purpose to resort to force; for l have
only affirmed that his conduct gave
me sufficient reason to believe that
such was his purpose. IL there be a
question Of veracity between us, | am
content to submit it to the verdict Of
the public, feeling assured that | can
convict him Of Misrepresentation on SO
many other points that the force ofhis
statement will be destroyed as To this.
l could produce testimony Of unques-
tionable credibilty that he announced
his intention to several persons short
time previous to carrying it into effect,
that he intended to have satisfaction
from me for publishing the paragraphs
to which he took oAense. | rcssrre
this proof for the present, prefering to
destroy the weight Of his testimony a.
before stated. He proceeds to say