The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1878-10-04
MAxsoN,s REPLY.


MaxsOn to the charges against him in
this paper last week. 1t may satisfy
some of his friends. If so they let him
off rather easy. Mr.. Maxson says, ''this
matter of making history to suit the
writer's purpose, is no new phase of
small historians" If we thought Mr..
Maxson referred to us, we might retort
by saying this matter of pulling the
wool over the eyes of the people for a
purpose, and because IL pays, is no new
phase with small politicians.
The Eldorado charge he dispOses of
by saying the statement published by
Judge Sumner is false. The statement |
of Sumner was made distinctly, and we |
gathered from conversation with several |
other citizens, whom we deem RESPONSE |
BILE, that they endorsed the publication |
as correct. The matter is between Mr.. |
Maxson and Judge Summer, and we
may hear further from the latter
Mr.. Maxson's explanation of his indie |
pendence transaction is not so clear as |
it might be; at least so it strikes us. He
admits that he received from Independ- |
ence $500 for his aid in the removal of the |
land Office to Independence, and says he |
has no apologies to make for that act, and |
that he would do it again "if placed in |
a like position and surrounded by like |
circumstances" That this assertion is |
true we are not at all disposed to doubt. |
Now, what was the object of indie |
pendence in offering him that money |
Every sensible man will say, to use
plain English, it was a bride to get him |
to aid in removing the land Office to In
dependence. He admits he took the |
bride. Commissioner Drummond says
he has the receipt of Maxson and Rey- |
nolds for $1,000 of the $3,4OO to be paid
by Independence. If Maxson got only
$500, he let somebody get away with
him, unless it was stipulated in the con
tract that he was TO be put off with |
the amount he says he received. What |
was since done with the balance of
the $1,000 he does not tell us. |
We shall endeavOr to find out. Mr.. |
Maxson's figures do not seem very |
clear to us. After giving us a state
ment of the business he did in his |
office, for specified time, he says the
fees and commissions aggregated $14-
SOILS; of which he received $2,767.99,
and paid for two clerks 81, 167-63; leav-
ing, for his services and with which to /
pay office rent, which he says was paid
by the city, etc, $SOO.36. The intention
evidently is to convey the idea that this |
is all he received for his valuable servi-
ces in that time, eleven months and nine
days. The truth is that he had a salary /
besides, of $500 year. He could not
have used the So, 1873 and also the $500
bride money, to pay clerks, and so we put
down the $500 as his pay. Then he
acknowledges he got $40 for extra clerk
hire, $50 days at So per day. In addi-
ton to this he says he got Is cts. per folio
for hundreds of pages of testimony in
contested cases. This must have been
large item, as he had 800 cases at one
time. If he still insists that all this
went to clerks, we should like to know
how much money it takes for clerks in
a land ofice-and why in the name of
all that's pure in politics, he didn't col
lect the other $500 donated by indie
pendence 'for clerk hire" Is it true, as
we heard once, that Mr.. Maxson was a
candidate for congress during his brief
stay in Independence, and was that the
reason why he had to have such nu-
IN clarina1 Nha g, 1I,oA |
the clerk hire business, as explained by
Maxson, is entirely too gauzy. And not
the terrible sacrifice he
made in holding the Office till he was
turned out, we cannot believe that he
sunk, for the sake of the government,
at the rate of $40 in one month and nine
days. We submit that another strong
and very suspicious circumstance
against him in this land office matter is
the fact, that in mentioning to the COM
missioner the inducements offered by In
dependence for the removal of the office
there, he said not a word about the So
400 offered for ''clerk hire"
Now, we wish to assure Mr.. Maxson
that we are not actuated by malice to-
ward him. We should prefer, wheth-
or he believes it or not, to write him up
rather than to write him down. We are
not aware that he ever hurt us any, and |
he is not in the least in our way in any
respect. We have no prejudice against |
him. He is candidate and his record |
is public property. In view Of the ex-
traordinary efforts he is making to be-
smirch others, as good if not better than |
himself, and TO belle the party to which |
we belong, for his own purposes, we |
felt called upon to give his record pub ]
licity. The facts have been known for |
some time, and we have frequently been |
urged by good citizens of this county to |
bring them to light. They think if he
wants office he must run on his record |
and merits. When these are known,
and we deem it our duty to let them be |
known, if the people whom he seeks to
represent elect him, it is with he and
them. But we submit, giving him the
most charitable Interpretation that can
be put upon his defense, that it is about
time for him to take up some other sub
ject than that of the corruption of the
Republican party. We assure him we
are not anxious at all for him to bestow
any notice upon us, and that the charges
are of too serious a nature to be turned
off by his learned illusions to Spanish
bull fights, or his filings at newspapers
A properly conducted newspaper, we are
aware, is in the way ofall such reformers
as he.