The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1879-11-19

Mr.. =. +. HOOKER having got badly
worsted in his worly combat with
Henri, seeks 10 attract attention there
from 10y trying his hand on me. In the
edusion published elsewhere, he, no
doubt, thought he had completely ami
Inflated me; hut those beside himself,
who see il that way, will be few and
far between. His production this week
reminds me of the Louisiana Negroes
ice. In the beautiful sunny Southland,
where the flowers ever bloom, and sum-
merholds perpetual sway, they have, of
course, no native ice, and away back
in the good old days of yore, when ice
was first imported there, il was regard
ell rs a great rarity. Upon one occasion,
Il rich old planter near New Orleans,
purchased good sized lump of ice, and
sent il home 10y the market boy with Il
message to the head cook To prepare it
for dinner. The wealthy old cotton raiser
asked few of his aristocratic friends
To dine with him, as he was going to
have ice. They accepted, and at the
proper hour the guests were seated
around a table well supplied with the
good things Of earth, but there was no
ice on hand. The master inquired of
the walters for ice, who looked con-
fused. The head cook was sent for and
came with fear and establishment pie
tured on his ebony face, and in answer
to the masters question said, "NIassa,
YOU sent me word to hab dat ice for
dinner. We all had IA "spute' bout
how to cook him. AFTER while, we
list made up our minds to bile him.
We put him on and billed him n long
time, tn git him good and tender, but
golla sakcs, massa, when we went to
take him up, he was mo dar'." Just so
with Prof. Rockers communication
this week, if you search for logic,
reason, argument or "A point made
against me worthy of reply. It's like
the negro's ice, its no dar.' He makes
strong point for me by introducing
my letter, which proves that his charge
against me, OF Partially, by refusing to
publish his reply to Murrell is false, and
shows further that my card in answer
to his charge against me, is true. If
Prof. Hooker were lawyer ian occur
renee hardly probable) and l were in
a lawsuit, should like to have him on
the other side, as he would certainly
get up all the proof my side of the case
would need. He charged Murrell with
wicked, wiltul and malicious lying, for
having said that he had been informed
so and 40, about the rule of school and
then turns around and proves himself
that his brother-in-law, George SOwders
did inform Murrell twice, just as he
stated. He charged me with partiality,
but comes out this week with my letter
and completely vindicates me from the
charge. He says he had resolved not to
reply to me, but seeing another letter
from Murrell, he concluded to do So
What is there i'm Murrell's letter that
caused you TO break your good resolve:
He did not at all refer to your charge
against me or my reply thereto. See
ing his letter and being induced to write
some more, why did you not answer
him? Was it not because he had com
pletely flOored you, and you could moi
say anything more? Why do you want
to get up controversy with me-
Having yourself proven that YOU
charge of partiality against me is false
what other grievance have you against
me? Your instructions to publish YOU
reply to Henri, rerbdtim or return 1t to
you was complied with by me.
would not act so dishOnorable as tC
promise to publish it all and then leave
out part of it. You carried it to the
editor of the NeWs and he promised you
to publish it oil, and then without youl
knowledge or consent, left out part
Now, having broken your resolve and