Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1878-01-03

age, after examining the first draft OF
the Bill made various valuable sug-
gestions which the committee adopted
and embodied in this bill.n
G. w. LEE.
EDITORS REPLY.
We are surprised that Mr.. Lee,
who has given so much thought and
time to this subject, is not better in
formed. But we see very clearly
how he is .misled. He places conf
aence in such men as Brick PomeroY.
who tells lies for business every
day and on Sundays for the fun of
hearing honest men repeat them.
Now we tell Mr.. Lee again that there
never was any such man as Earnest
Floyd, or Earnest Lloyd. The name
he is driving at is Ernest Seyd. The
London Bankers Magazine never said
any such thing-as he thinks it did.
His reason ought to tell him that. If
the bankers or moneyed men of Eu-
rope sent q man over here to bride
our Congress would they publish it to
the world, even to the telling how
much money they were going to do it
with? Nonsense As TO Ernest
Seyd, with whom some of our men,
bers of Congress may have conferred
in relation to the bill, he is bimetal
ist He has said and written more
in favor of silver With gold as legal
money than any other man. His
work of 1868 has been quoted both
in and out of Congress again and
again and is regarded as the most
able authority in favor of silver none
tization. The Congressional Record
does not say that Mr.. Hooper said
anything April 9, 1873. There was
neither any Congress nor any Con-
gressional Record at that date. Con.
gress adjourned March Sd, 1873. and
did not sit again until December. Mr..
Lee has the fact thoroughly stamped
upon his mind that the law he abuses
so much was passed February 18th,
1873. This being the case what
would Hooper be making speeches on
1t for, the next April? Brick POM
eroy probably said this happened in
1873, knowing any person foolish
enough to follow him would not 60
to the trouble Of looking at the Con-
gressional Record. Mr.. Hooper's
speech was made on the 9th of April,
1872. But this fact gives the lie to
that other--that the law was passed
hastily and surreptitiously; for it
shows that the bill was under consid-
Grafton then-which was ten months
before it passed, and in that very
speech Mr.. Hooper says "the bill was
prepared two years ago and was SUBJ
mitted to careful and deliberate ex-
animation and Celebrates upon the
changes to be made in the "dollar of
the daddies." 1t says that Ernest
Seyd, of London, furnished many valu-
able suggestions which were incorpo-
rated in the bill, but as he is SO
thoroughly opposed to the demoneti-
cation of silver that could not have
been one of them. We trust our
thump this time will knock the breath
out of Earnest Floyd" and Earnest
Lloyd" SO far as Mr.. Lee is concern
ed. Just here we ask Mr.. Lee to ex-
plain his motive in injecting the words
"now here" into the quotation from
Mr.. Hooper's speech? They are not
in the speech. They are a forgery.
MIR. Seyd had gone home. The men
who are trying to deceive the people
put the "now here" into the speech
to make their story hold toge ther, that
he bribed Congress. But we suppose
it was not Mr.. Lee. 1t was such in
fernal scoundrels, professional liars,
as Brick Psmeroy, whose lies Mr..
Lee swallows as mice swallow cheese
and arsnic.
The statement that the bill passed
at midnight, February 18th, 1873 is
as easily disposed Of. If Mr.. Lee will
take the trouble to look at the Con-
gressional Globe himself, as we are
doing while we write, he will find
that the House adjourned its sittings
for that day (Feb. IL, 1879 at pre-
cisely o'clock, p. m, and the Senate
at precisely 8 o'clock and seven min
utes, p. M, and that that act was
signed by the Speaker of the House
and by the Vice President before one
o'clock in the afternoon, at which
time both Houses went into joint SEES.
sion to count the electoral vote.
As to the retractions, we have not
that of Mr.. Weed before US, but il was
published in SO many papers that it is
strange if it has escaped the attention
of Mr.. Lee. We shall endesyor to
give it place next week. In the Con-
gressional Record of November 9,
1877, Mr.. Lee will find speech by
Mr.. Riddle favoring the repeal of the
Resumption act. He was repeating
the usual olaptrap about how the de.
monetization OF silver was brought
about when Mr.. Kelley interrupted
him with the following:
ask the gentleman to yield to me to cor
rect an error into which he has beer misled,
as was. | know that he wants to state facts
and that misstatement Injuries cause. The
Ernest Lloyd referred TO by the gentleman is
Ernest Seyd and his name has been published
as Ernest Lloyd. The record is that Mr.. Seyd
is and always has been an opponent of the de-
monetizstion of silver. Therefore the story is