The Russellville Democrat., 1878-06-27
MORE ABOUT THE K. Is. SIII
 S. POPE COUNTY.
Col. Sol. F. clark Icises to Ex- plain, and takes Mr. Winfield tO task for hls Letter in last

plain, and takes Mr. Winfield tO task for hls Letter in last
 Democrat.
 EDIroR RussELLvrLLE DEMocRAr
 Dear Sir-I see Ill your paper Of 'this morning, all article written by w. H. Winfield, of this City, which is very unjust towards Col. Williams. and undoubtedly designed to iniure him ill his canvass for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. l cannot ask space and time to refer to all the niisstatements and false suggestions involved in the article, but Mir. Williams absence and the indecency of such an article, just when it is too late for Mr. Williams to refer to it before your County Convention meets, requires word from me IS an associate counsel with Mir. Williams in these cases.
 Mr. Winfield says, 'sthat after the rendition of Stacy's judgment against the old company, (the same which Mir. Williams characterized, and no doubt rightfully, as fraudu- lent because Stacy's debt was against the contractors, Fisher * Go, and not against the old company, and tue judgment was by default), they filed creditor's bill in the United States Circuit Court, to compel the non resident stockholders to pay their respective stock subscriptions, or so much thereof as was necessary to satisfy Stacy's judgment. He then further says, that "we purpose ly left the old resident stock holders oat of the bill for the following req sons:
 @First-B Because they had paid 274a per cent. on their stock.
 sSecond-They had been released by resolution of the board of direct ors, so far as that could be done, be- fore the company became indebted to Stacy.
 "Third They had been dispos- sessed by swarm of nonresident stockholders, who took possession of the company and its affairs, and the old stockholders were no longer nor ally responsible for what occurred.
 "At this juncture of affairs, Col. Huntington came out from Boston, in the interest of the non resident stockholders. He appeared in court and demurred to our bill on the ground, among other things, that we had not made the resident stock holders defendants.
 ss.rhe court sustained his demur- Ter, and we were compelled to amend by bringing in the old stockholders as parties defendants. This we did with reluctance, for the reasons pre- viously stated, etc.
 Now, sir, so to mix up truth and error-facts and fctions-as to in sinuate falsehood, is just as bad and just as dishonest as falsehood out right If there are any facts at all in the foregoing statement of Mir. Winfield, they are so stated as to inculcate a general meaning, which is totally false. Nr. Stacy never brought any suit in the United States Court against tho NON REST DENT stockholders of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad Company, nor did Mr. Huntington, or Clark & Williams, ever demur to any such bill on the ground that the resident stockholders were not made parties, and Mir, Winfield would not pretend in our hearing, or in court, that there was ever any such pleadings or proceedings III that court; yet, this is exactly the meaning of the above quotation.
 The facts are, that when Mir. Sta cy had got his default judgment against the old company (which had been defunct nearly . year when he got it), his attorney, Mir. Winfield, and others brought two suits h the United States Court. ono in behalf of Stacy, and the other in behalf of Cornelius Hurley, who had also ob- tained judgment against the old company. These suits were not by any means agalnst the non resident stockholders as such, but against Mir. Huntington, Mir. Atkins and MT. Converse in person. They alleged in the complaints that those parties were large stockholders in the old company, and that by the Constitu- tion of 1868, stockholders in joint stock companies were liable to the creditors of the company in double the amount of their stock, and also that stockholders whose stock was not paid up were liable to the credit ors for the amounts unpaid; and that these parties had not paid in full for their stock.
 To these bills Mir. Huntington, who was one of the defendants, put in demurrers in the name of himself and the other defendants, and asso- cated Clark & Williams with him as attorneys The grounds of the de- murrers were, that, as point of law, these stockholders were not liable under the Constitution of 1868 to double the amount of the stock, and that as to the liability for unpaid stock the bills were defective, be- cause such liability could only be reached by bill in behalf of all the | Al | | Il Il