The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1878-02-09
the DALLAS AND WICHITA AND on.
CALDER,

and writes over his own signature, ha
card headed Pointed and Personal,
which will also be found OF
our third page this morning
Had We been in the city it would VI
. doabtediy have first seen the light il
, the columns of THK HERAIp. We reere
very much that the doctor found il Il
be urgent business which so suddenl,
called him to Kansas City, because, ",
wanted to him see the card and ths
reply appear together, at the earlies
possible moment after such appearance
| We deem il proper to say to DR.. Cal
der that we do not intend to be led of
from the main question by any, howev,
er skilfully gotten up. lures II is tbs
truth only which hurts, and that 10 ex
actiy what DR. Calder doesn't wan,
published just now, rs the validity o.
that $4,000 claim is before the courts
and bottom facts" as he said the othe,
day, would bear heavily upon him.
! The citizens of Dallas city and county
are more interested in the validity oi
that $4,000 claim than they are in the
fact That We wished TO make both DR.
Reid and DR. Calder pay at least the
cost to set up their matter, which we
regarded then, as now, only a struggle
between two men representing rival
claims upon the Dallas and Wichita.
We have said repeatedly that we regard
pr. helds claim as valid, because he
has put down money for it. in the way
OF road construction and otherwise, and
Dr calders as "shadowy." if not sctu,
Ally fraudulent, because no ADEQUATE
consideration was rendered on his par.
so Tar as We have been able to see,
when we first began looking into the
affairs of the Dai.as and Wichita
we were stranger in the city,
and did so with view to attack.
ing the cause of the existing DELAY in
ITS construction, and we were told
that since it passed out of DR.. Calder's
hands there had been nothing but de-
lay, but that during his administration
it had gone on all right. Under that
impression. we are very free to admit
that We did think, and perhaps say
for we generally do that--he ought
to be again at its head. Look
ing little deeper into matters. we
found the exact reverse to be true and
Immediately took decent occasion to
say 30, and in decent terms. Dr.
Calder replied in offensive and dragon.
ing ways and words which provoked
the personal allnsions which have 80
deeply wounded him.
The editor of paper advocates or
opposes a measure only as in his l,,dg~
Eient IT affects the good OF the public.
and he must determine when he has
gone far enough to serve that purpose
and discharge his duty. This we did,
ahd gave both DR.. Reid and DR.. Calder
reasonable space, but as soon as the
fight degenerated into personal con-
test We refused topublish more except on
the terms that Others could use our col.
umns for, forsimilar purposes. We made
no distinction. Dr. C. complained. DR..
X did not. So much for that. We will
still publish DIR. Cslder's views and hix
side OF the case, but only az We then
proposed, as paid matter. aud are not
anxious even to do that. The self
same rule obtained with the other mat.
ter DR., Calder alluded to, viz the post
office. We put the paper on record
as fasoring very strongly the
windsor hotel as the place. A few gen>
tlemen interested in the uptown loca.
tion paid Tux HERALD the compliment
10 say that its influence was formidable
IN the matter. and wished to know If il
would publish the other side. They
proposed to pay our advertising price.
and had they gone into it, we certainly
would have published the matter. The
business might have amounted to FIVE
hundred dollars, we know not. No. we
did MT offer TO do anything; we SIM
ply considered propositions of mere bu>
siness, legitimate and fair, and have
never asked why the matter was aban,
doned. for the simple reason that we
did not care
The doctor unwisely makes it mat,
ter OF veracity between the editor of
The HERALD and himself. We accept it.
Colonel Pointer personally and point
edly told US that the doctors assertion
that he Colonel Pcinter) voted for him
self in the recent organization was
i'd he" DIR. Reid, over his own sig-
nature, in recent number of this paper
says, in effect, the same thing. Is this not
sufficient on the score of veracitys ques-
ton which nsuer ought 10 Be discussed ia tie
eot,mns Of nessspoper. However, while
we arc on the question of veracity, We
take occasion to say, that the insinaa>
ton that DR.. Reid pays" us, is false in
fact. and malicious and mean in spirit
and We defy Dr. Calder TO produce the
least scrap of proof from any source
whatever.
In regard 20 the offer to oppose DR.
Reds getting the bonds. We have only
to say that nobody ever said q word to
US ON that subject except nr. c.. aud
We told him he would have TO pay for
communicatious on the subject, and
any other assertion is like the others We
have referred to-falsa. With this We
dismiss the doctor, until the petition in
the case now pending, Is published,
when we will briefly refer to the subject
and the doctor again. Had we charged
Dr. Calder fair price for such matter
as he has already written for us on this
subject, We might be able to buy sever
a claims, such - his against the poor
unfortunate Dallas and Wichita, aud
have rendered more consideration
Therefor,
4 THr tariff billa nublished in rha phil.