The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1881-01-14
An open Letter 90 the Faiter. aud a
fcw Ltues IN Reply.

giaof hifa' Jasraai.
On several occasions you have seen prop
or 10 criiicise my conduct ~ a member Of
the Lincoln County Court Heretofore
nave not noticed your attacks upon me
simply for the reason that official acts an,
public property and proper subjects for tho
scrutiny and criticism Of interested jour
nalists. My own opinion that your cri,i-
cisms have been unjust, have not consid'
cred sufficient apology for asking space
in your columns to reply to them, but the
frequency Of them does, and am grateful
to you for giving me ne much space in
your columns A. | desire for a reply to your
comments upon the action Of the County
Court on the 3ri inst. and my connection
Herewith a. an individual member Of the
Court.
hope you will not regard me As egotis.
teal for replying first to so much Of your
article as relates to myself | only do thi.
because il is a subject that the people will
be least interested in, and should therefore
be most speedily disposed Of In your ar
ticle | am made to say that you "had pur'
posely misled the people by concealing
the fact that Mr.. Baughman wanted $500
extra, and urging all Democrats to vote fol
him because he was the nominee" Now,
| said no such thing, and You were eau
tious enough to say that you were informed
that made such an assertion. Just here,
Mr.. Editor, by way Of parenthesis, let me
ask you II you don't consider yourself =
little wanting in enterprise when you rely
on vulgar rumor for the proceedings Of a
Court in which nearly all Of your readers
are interested, instead Of the report Of
yourself or properly accredited reporter
acting for YOU What | did say was that
your editorials in which you urged the
Democratic voters Of the county TO support
Mr.. y. had misled many and induced them
to vote for him when they would not have
done so unless they had regarded him as
the nominee Of their party, and | did not
ON that occasion, or any other, charge you
with concealing the fact that Mr.. 4, want
ed the $500 per annum extra pay for dis
charging the duties Of the office Of Sheriff
Of Lincoln County. am not conscious
that ! was, upon the occasion, either in
language or department, il!-humored or
Gross on the contrary my recollection is
distinct that about this matter Of Mr.. Rs
$500, ! was particularly light-hearted and
happy, for voted with the majority, de-
feating this proposition which ! considered
a job in violation Of 81 law and public
policy, and just such measure a. would
have done incalculable mischief 70 the
Democratic party Of the county had it
been carried out by our Democratic Court.
II you mean that the defeat Of the propo-
sition crossed set purpose Of your own,
Mr.. Editor, then was a Gross man on
the occasion. confess, however, that at
times ! am an irritable man. But YOU
should deal gently with me under this
inirmily. "a fellow feeling should make
one wondrous kind"
| have nothing further to saw about my
self directly. Everything, however, that
do say in this article in defense or eSpla-
nation Of the action Of the Court, must
necessarily relate indirectly to me, a. a
member Of it. ! propose to take YOUR arti.
Gle as text, and show you, Mr.. Editor,
wherein you are mistaken-badly mistak-
en-, in many Of your statements, You say
that Mr. Baughman presented Gl5 delin-
quents, all Of which were allowed but II;
that this was about 500 less than Mr.. Fe-
land returned, and that Mr.. b. has saved
the county from 81 200 to 81 800 yearly.
I Unfortunately for you, Mr.. Editor, you do
not speak by the record, except as to the
number Of delinquents returned by and
allowed to Mr.. Il. just here, let me show
you, before proceeding further, how smart
IN editor can be, and how his smariness
may result in misleading large number
IF his readers. You say that "this is about
800 less ldelinquentsi than Mr.. Feland re-
urned.' This statement Of yours unex-
blamed would leave the impression with
most Of your readers that Mr.. Feland was
loood about 800 more delinquents than
Ir. H., for the people generally don't UNI
Iersland the difference between rcfapaine
elinquents and oiloring delinquents. Mr..
: for the year 1879 was allowed las /
For the year 1879 Mr.. b. was allowed 62j,
nd for the year lsSO was allowed COS.
he difference between Mr.. rs number
DR. ISIS ard Mr.. BIS for 1879 is 523, and
1r 1850 is jl3. The taxes collected from
he j23 for 1879 would amount to not ex-
eeding 500. For collecting this Mr.. b.
.as allowed by law S3l.60 Add to this
l. $500 additional compensation, making
he aggregate Of S33l.6O, and deduct the
Ist named sum from the amount Of taxes,
ives Si5S.iO saved by NIB. to the county
" the year 1879. by the same process
on will discover that he saved for the
,unty for the year 1850 Sis7.2O But
iese estimates, which are from the rec
'ds, are upon the assumption that the
SCISSORS books for 1878 were Of the same
iaracter a. those for 1879 and 1850, re-
'eclively. But, II you will take the
euble 10 examine them, you will find
Iat a large number OF transient persons
ere listed for taxation in 1875 who were
,t listed in 1879 and 1850, which would
ny largely reduce the amount 4ired by
II. u.
don't make this statement for the pur-
,se Of disparaging Mr.. Baughmans repu.
ton as a useful, pains-taking, aocommo-
ting and efficient Sheriff ! subscribe
everything said in commentator Of
m in this respect, and no one regrets
ore than myself that the people Of the
unity are to lose his services. But il is
u just, and am sure Mr.. Baughman
les not desire that his character for Ofi-
al lhriii and economy shall be embel-
he'd by having accorded 10 him the ac-
q