The Russellville Democrat., 1878-06-20

did with reluctance for the reasons previously stated, setting up every defense we could urge in their be- half. Col. Williams claims to have been associated with Col. Hunting ton in the achievement of these brill iant victories and if such is the case he is. responsible for Pope county and her citizens being parties de fcndant to this suit, as we'll as sever al other counties in the Northwest. It is true Steacy is on the adverse side of the case from Pope county, but Steacy purposely left out Pope county. It is stated by Williams that he is with Pope county and against Steacy. and that he is asso- ciated with Col. Huntington; if this be true he is directly responsible for Pope county being involved in this litigation from which we ssaght to relieve her.
 Col. Huntington alse oy plea con tested the validity of Steacy's judg- mcnt setting up that by reason of the foreclosure sales, combinations, reorganization, etc, the old Compa. ny had csased to exist and that . judgment against-it was . mere null lity; this plea was decided against Col. Huntington and in our favor. After this Col. Huntington filed bills for injunction against all the judg- ments mentioned in MT. Williams' correspondence. In Steacy's case we filed . demurrer to the bills for injunction; our demurrer was over ruled and the injunction refused also. I presume this ruling was in consequences of the importance of the case, and from the fact that the Court preferred to examine into the real facts of the case on bill answer and proof. We have answered and are now taking dispositions to be sub mitted to the Court and from which it and not MT. Williams will deter mine whether or not 1t is fraudulent l MT. Williams ought to have some reluctance in passing 90 freely and unadvisedly upon these grave ques- tions for several reasons:
 1st. Because 1t is unbecoming in an aspirant for the Supreme Bench. It is transgression of propriety in one who is striving to become the dignified associate of Justices En. |glish and Harrison.
 I End. Because Mr. Williams haa already made one unpardonable blunder by pronouncing the Little Rock and Ft Smith Railroad Com. pany dead, in which he overruled some very respectable authorities and has since been reversed himself | 3rd. Because his chances are nev. CT better for being mistaken in his legal conclusions, than when they blossom out too soon.
 l Just where, how, and under wha, Il circumstances Clark & Williams ceased to represent the old stock holders in the Little Rock and Ft Smith Railroad Company, and be came the attorneys of the non-resi dent stockholders fthe old Railroad Company and of the new Railway Company, are matters concerning l which the old stockholders along the line of the Railroad arc more famil far with than 1 am. Suffice it to say that if their transactions are as fres from blame in this regard as Steacy's and mine arc in the recovery of the judgment referred to. they do moi deserve to be characterized as fraud ulent or suspicious.
 I In conclusion I desire to state thai Col. Williams has never appeared ir Court in the case of Steacy against stockholders, and has never to my knowledge had anything to say in any of the discussions involved; that uE to this good hour Colonel Hunting ton has made al! the fight that has been made single handed and alone That Col. Williams is unacquaintet with the record of the case, wh:cf ignorance he openly manifesto by stating in his letter that injunctions have been obtained against all tho judgments referred to, when not ons single injunction has been obtained in any one oc these cases either tenn perary or perpetual, and in Steacy'l tsuit the only one in which the bil for that purpose has been passed upon the injunction was positively denied. That Pope county, if sh' escapes the payment of her stool