Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1876-04-29
Mr.. Ahrens Speaks.

a willful attack made upon me in thu
last issue of the Register, over the sig
nature of one Frank Whitcomb Davis
The writer would seem to convey the
idea that he is a democrat himself, but
d~ispleased with the nomination for may.
or made by the democratic convention
on last Saturday. In rejecting upon my
nomination for the office of mayor, his
mind is considerably preiudiced on &C.
count of some great wrong which he
thinks l have committed in the path oil
my duty as school director as well as
councilman. He takes special pains to
incite the feelings OF the laboring class
against me; considers the causes of my
otfense in three parts, and says, evil
MIR. Ahrens eNplain?" First,
"It will be remembered at least by some, that
during last year there were sOme contracts let by
the Board of Education, the letting of which
was not done exactly according to Hoyle; the
above named nominee WAS one of the committe.
to let said work. l referred the matter to the
public, chased the fox to his de and when there
was no further space for retreat, the aforesaid
gentleman pOked out the paw of innocence by
saying that he had nothing to do with the mat
ter. Here we show that he is either negligent of
the duties with which he is intrusted or that he
committed a willful wrong. Take either horn
of the dilemma and it places him in an attitude
widely differing from what is claimed for him
by some writer who says that he is prompt,
honest and intelligent.
Now, as regards the contract above al
luded to, in which the writer finds so
much fault with me, 1 will simply say
that it was in the spring of 1875 when
the contract for building the fence around
the old grave yard, now school block,
was let out. Messrs. Ethan Allen, j.
A. Price and myself were appointed a
committee to let the contract; Mr.. Price,
as secretary of the board, was the one
who received the bids. l think that one
bid was handed to me, 1 do not know
now from whom, but this 1 handed also
to the secretary. I was, at the time, on
the eve of going east to supply my store
with goods, and requested Messrs.
Price and Allen to open the bids at the
proper time, and let the contract. 1 need
not explain here that I had full conf
dence in the two members of the COM
mittee that they would act in the inter-
est of the board and do what was right.
1t happened that did not get away on
that day, and while 1 was preparing for
my trip east on the next day, the two
committee members sent over to nv
house for me. 1 went over, and found
the bids opened; the names on a slip of
paper, and the price set opposite each
name, and it was agreed that Mr.. Puck
EFT was the best bidder, and the contract
was awarded to him. Afterward there
were other bids offered to furnish trees
to the different school yards. At this
time | was present. w. F. Price was the
lowest bidder, at 80 cents per tree, the
growth of the same to be guaranteed,
and if Frank Whitcomb Davis made a
lower bid, as he afterward claimed. l
did not know anything about t,and can
not be held responsible for it. This is
the whole story, i'll which the writer
fippantly says that 1 ''poked out the
paw of innocence" For further infor-
nation l refer the writer to the records
OF the board; and, if there is anything
wrong, Col. DeMotte is a lawyer and a
member of the board, and has never obiec-
ted to the committees action. He has a
right to arraign his fellow-members for
any unlawful act, and l shall stand the
ordeal.
Second, the writer recites a hog law
ordinance which was before the council
last summer, and substitutes from nv
language phrases which l never uttered.
He admits when he says or Language
to That effect" and cher he comments up
on an oppressive feeling toward the poor
laborer. This, of course, is all intended
to arouse prejudice against me. The fact
is that the laborer never had a better
friend in the council. I always advoca-
ted plans to bring the city to a cash ba-
sis, so that the laborer might get the full
worth of their earnings. Never has any
city prospered when she has been bur-
dened with a heavy load of floating
debt. The merchant, mechanic or other
business man, who has had full per-
sonal experience Of this, knows whether
it has not brought thousands to ruin.
They will all agree with me that, under
a cash system, or nearly SO, both parties
are benefited the man hat buys as we'll
as the seller, the that labors as well
as the employer There is another ben
eft which must accrue from a cash sys-
tenn. We have a limited amount of rev.
enue to spend during the fiscal year.
On a cash system we get the full worth
OF our money, and the laborer gets it
all. On a %ruinous warrant or credit
system we lose from % to 40 per cent.
OF this revenue, and the laborer loses the
ame So long as we continue this svs-
tenn, he has to GO to the storekeeper and
sacrifice his warrant at a terrible dis |
count. and if he wants the cash for it, he
has to do still worse.
This is what the gentleman who has
written in the Register calls oppression
perpetrated toward the laborer. l chal-
lenge the gentleman to prove what he
says, and tell him that the laborer knows
better h to follow the lead of 4 dis |
appointed seeker after contracts.
The third charge is that there was an
effort made, by the council, last year.
ordering the marshal to take city war
in payment Of all city taxes. He
says: ''Mr. Ahrens fought this against
the interest of the working Glass; In
the first place, Mr.. Editor, it is a mere
assumption, on his part, to say it was
against the interest of the working class.
and in the second place there never was
4 baser SANDER than this perpetrated up
on me. There was not only an effort
made at the time, but it was also order
by the council, and this was all done
while was absent in St. Louis. ~conse-
Iuently | could not have fought against
1t. l can hardly believe that the ~pentle-