Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-03-22
A GARD FROM JUDGE YOUNG.

EDITOR INrKLLIaEHCER:-At the solicitation
Of mutual friends 1 have delayed answering the
card of Mr.. Blackwell, which appeared in your
paper q few weeks SINCE, Tin which he natly con-
the statement made by me in regar TO
the employment oil attorneys by the county
court TO defend township bond suits. III SO far
as the conversation between him and the court
Is concerned. 1 would not notice it now were 1t
not that some unfriendly reader might argue
from my silence that I had knowingly stated
what was not so. The only inaccuracy In my
statement was the use Of the words lat least Two
members OF the court. I ought, In order 10
have been technically correct, perhaps, to have
said .one member who spoke what he knew to
be the sentiments and opinion OF at least two
members of The court:'' but there is no differ
ence In the idea conveyed, and no one could
Justly hang any objection on so frail Q point.
Judge Prather was the member with whom the
conversation was had, and who made the propo-
sition to Mr.. Blackwell. mentioned by me In
my former communication. With the exception
that he does not ~recollect that Mr.. b., In that
conversation, gave his opinion that tho AMOUNT
In cash contained In my proposition. VIZ. $'oo'
WAS not sum Gle mt to make an elective DEFENSE.
and that Mr.. B. said that there was some contest
between Mr.. Graves and myself. and that ne
WOulQ not OeClQS OelWccu No. "uA8o ssA =
recollection Of the conversation Iuiiy pears me
out and substantiates my statement.
Mr.. B. does not deny that he did, in his argu-
ment before the court. emphaticaily state that
the amount in cash proposed was insufficient for
the purpose. In justice to Mr.. B. I here state
that the interpretation sought to be placed upon
my statement OF Mr.. BIS conversation by some
hypercritical individuals is unwarrsnted, and
that thelangusge will not bear any such interpre-
tation. Mr.. BIS objection to the amount had
NO bearing on his motive for not wishing the
court to make the order for him to defend the
suits, and could have none. Mr.. b. was prose-
cutting attorney, and Il tcos not p opposed IN
my p~resencs TO- gfvs him os.y amount sondt,
evcr, He was simply TO be directed to defend
the suits, and OF course his expenses would be
paid, let them be more or less. His statement
necessarily DO more than the amount fixed
by me. The making OF the order proposed
would have left the amount uncertain, to De
order was concerned, would not have been y
cent in MT. B.'s pocket. Nor does my statement
imply that Mr.. B: had changed bis opinion OF
just the reverse. 1t will be remembered that 4,
tons Of law; that is the duty Of the court. III.
fair Interpretation of my statement OF Mr.. BIS
Language and action in the case /, that he had
decided sdversi, to his sdvice. he Gould do nothss
ing but acquiesce and obey its orderr; but be
required the record to set out every particular,
so that the responsibility should lie made to rest
where 1t belonged. I assert here that Mr.. b
did not change his opinion of the law. nor did
any one understand him to have done 10, no
does my Communication bear any such interpre.
tation. I have deemed this much due Mr.. B.,
on account Of the action Of certain busy -bodlsi
who have pretended to each such = meaning
from my former article.
With the slight alteration above made In rot.
erence to the words sat least two members" o
the court, I here emphaticallY re-assert my for
mer statement, and at1rm that it Is correct.
speak Of my own kn~0wledxe. I was present
and heard the proposition and conversation be
tween Judge Prather and MIR. B., anu l knew .
the time that Judge p. spoke the opinion OF u
least one member Of the court beside himself
And the recollection Of Judge p. bears me out II
every substantial particular:
l have spoken to Mr.. B., and he disClaims an,
recollection OF having made use Of the Language
attributsd to him, aud while he admits having
some conversation with Judge P, he firmly de
MES that he ever expressed himself Is l hsv
stated. Admitting the parties to be equal.
worthy Of belief. the question resolves itself int
one OF difference of recollection. Now, who 1
Mistaken? Two men who state Q positive fact
agreeing substantially, or one man who state
an absence OF that happeninc-or a negatIon
and those who want further evidence are refer
red to Judge p. have no intention to do an,
one an injury, or to vent any in-feeling. Will
stung and angry At arst, have remembered. il
my cooler moments, that there are difference
, that are constantly arising, and should be treat
ed dispassionately and kindly. l disslsim an
intention Of casting any reflection on Mr.. b.
but believe he has forgotten the matter, an
fact that Mr.. B.'s contradiction of my state
ment hus been spread bl oadcast In the land an
that my silence might be- construed, by thos
who do not know me, into an admission that
had spoken falsely. Respectfully, x,,,,c