Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-11-24
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.


EDITORS APPEAL.-A report has been
circulated on the streets for the past two
days, to the effect that the recent move
ment on the part Of a very large num-
Der OF Democrats and Conservatives
here to hold a municipal convention,
was gotten up, fOrsoOth, for the purpose
of defeating the aspirations of Mr.. A.
T. Lacey for the office OF mayor, "be-
cause he was not in the Confederate
army" This is simply bosh. The
movers for the convention OF Memphis
Democrats are citizens who did not, nor
do not, care whether Mr.. A. I. Lacey
was in the Confederate army or in Hal
flax during the war. The call
was signed, and most cbeerfully
too, by Mr.. T. b. Edgington, N1r. Ho-
sea Townsend, Judge HaIsey, and
many other gentlemen who were in the
Federal service, as we'll as those who
were in the Confederate; and the names
of M any appear on it who we're in nei-
Their army. The objects which prompt
ed the move are clearly set forth in the
call, and cannot be misunderstood by
any except those who wish and intend
to do so. Our condition, as citizens OF
Memphis and Democrats, has become
exceedingly rich and juicy, indeed,
when we cannot call ourselves
together in public meet
ing TO determine whom we
ought to select and vote for TO discharge
the duties of mayor with faithfulness,
honesty and ability, without having so
unworthy a motive imputed as this un-
founded and uncalled for report awards.
If Mr.. Lacey is Democrat and desires
to present his claims to that convention,
and is willing TO abide the disposition of
them by that body, the question will
never be asked him which army he
served in. Such reports as the one re-
ferred to can only proceed from ill-ad-
VIsed friends, and Mr.. Lacey should at
once protest his opposition to the one in
vogue, in justice TO himself.
CONVENTION DEMOCRAT.
Correction.
EDITORS APPEAL-The APPEAL of
yesterday contained the following para
graph:
T. B. Edgington, attorney for Smith, Tran
than and shaw, has written another sensa-
tional letter TO Cincinnati paper. The article
is calculate d to place the encouragement of
the Bartlett court in wrong attitude, Be-
cause A tOrney-General WRIGHT failed to in
dict the authors of the outrage it does not fol-
of the Bartlett court have acted wrong in SO
dong. This letter, however, is far from being
true, and comes in bad grace from lawyer
engaged to defend Smith & Co.
The closing sentence bears construc-
ton which implies that [ had made
false statements in regard to the subject
matter Of the letter referred to by you,
and which / would not notice mad it
come from J. NJ. Tighe, Who is un-
worthy any notice from me, but as it
appears to be the opinion of the editor
Of respectable journal, feel it to be
duty I owe to myself to call your atten-
ton to it, in the belief that you will
make the proper correction of it, as
am 10th to Believe that the editors OF the
APPEAL, whom have regarded as per-
sOnal friends, would Intentionally do me
Injustice. The letter referred to in your
paragraph l believe to be true and cor
rect, although it may not have been as
lucid az it might have been, for the rea-
son it was q brief and hastily written
note. t. B EDGINGTON.
I'VE did not intend to impugn Mr..
Edgington's verscity in the above para
graph. We simply construed his letter
to his clients to mean, as we stated, that
he considered the Bartlett court did
wrong, judged by the refusal of Attor-
ney-GeneIal Wright to indict the Smiths.
That we 90 not believe, nor does Mr..
Edgipgton. The Bartlett grand jury
and Attorney General Gordon no doubt
acted upon what they believed to be suf-
fcient rmation.--EDITORS APPEAL.