Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1882-07-08
That Outrage.

eitcilux fTOi. CHtIOu NJ u salary OF $J9U. w e
suggest that probably the extra $40 can be
Topped OF the bills allowed for printing.
Admitting all that the elevated journal
claims for Mr.. Cstr0n, that he Is \ large tax
payer, . native Of the county and Q good
teacher, we can't see Why that paper should
state that Mr.. .Ciark's Recommendations are
SUCH ss any man not utterly worthless eau
secure. Why does It endssvor to poison The
minds OF The patrons and pupils before they
get even y glimpse OF the MANI? Whv prrju.
dice the public so that II Will require u Years.
teaching to secure the good VIII aud conf
dsncs OF those interested IN Our schools. II
IL s~vld-ntly Its object 10 injure and cripple
the Influence VI the man even if the success
OF tbs scJ'Ools il thereby jeopsrd,Zed. To
treat y stranger nnI school teacher In this
manner may be southern chivalry. in fact
s0utherners never did have an exalted Opin-
ionsof school teachers. but II Prof. Clark be-
uev-s la The code, then look out Tor y couple
Ut harmless shots to satisfy "honah."
Two years ago Prof. Clark was elected to
this same position. Threatening letters were
sent him and such q howl was raised. until
the professor concluded we were all BUSH
1t any salary The same tactics are being
tried again with whst result remains to be
seen.
The elevated journal claims that the cleo.
ton OF Mr.. Clark Is condemned by y majori-
ty OF the people with whom its editor has
ocus " uhSo hibO LAIkeu Will b NUN.
Der OF our citizens and the only conclusion
we can arrive 81. Is that Prot. Clark will be
cordially welcomed. He was elected by the
board OF education, the members of which
have done nothing TO forfeit the good will
AMI confidence OF their constituents. MIR.
.tstl0ns or even lsg-rolling ON his part.
He can rest assured that he will have the
good wishes ami moral support OF every
eitizsn who takes an Interest IN our public
school system.
Our contemporary, as usual, begins its
criticism Of this paper by being unparlis-
mentsry. 1t sndeavors to rldIcule. we sup.
pose. any prstsnslons that the In,elligencer
may have 10 ''elsvstei journalism by speak
Ing Of 1t sllghtingly and impolitely, In an
epithet. This sort Of discussion OF public
questions seems to he inseparable from its
eolumns. We regret 1t. Gentlemen carry
on discussions politely and d%ecorously. We
see no good reason why newspapers should
not. At n rate we shall endeavor not to
fall into the fault Of replying by epithets.
which would require quite rs little wit as
did their application In the first place.
The Lnteiligencer did not enter u word Of
objection to the election OF Prof. Clark Ut u
salary Of $1,000 Instead of re-electing Prof.
Catron at y salary Of $780, and we are not
at all interested as to whether the extra'ten.
dollars Is saved In printing bills or other
wise. The salary is not too high, rs liked by
the board, for q competent M IN. ~
Th lntellIgencer has not q word to say
against the character OF Mr.. Clark. either AS
. gentleman or teacher, AID expressly stated
last week that 1t knew nothing sgainst him,
leaving every necessary good quality ~
probably possessed by him, but 1t insisted,
that Ms compared with q man known from
eoyhood by q community, recommendations
written by strangers OF q stranger should
weigh but lightly. and that any man not alb
solutely worthless who IL seeking employ
ment away from home can always procure
recommendations. There Is no object on our
part 10 Cripple the influence of the man, or
to jeopardize the success Of the schools. As
the ritter has three children In the school
over which the gentleman would have i'm
supervision, he could hardly wish
to do 1t an injury.
The threatening letters sent to Prof. Clark,
yours ago. aud some other anonymous
attacks, are Is much condemned by US as
by any person In the community. We are
opposed to all such cowardiy and Indecent
means OF wreaking spite, as we have always
shown. aud no one who has any regard for
truth VIII ever ACCUSE us Of sympathy with
such proceedings. We have made no threats
sgainst Mr. Clark. AMI We entirely agree
with our contemporary when 1t says that he
will be cordially welcomed should he com.
here to teach. So far rs he Is concerned we
have nowhere heard q word OF condemna-
ton or fault-indIng. He had u perfect right
to seek the position. aud has SO, far ss we
know done nothing censurabls In doing SO;
but IL our contemporary thinks the men,
bsrs OF the board did nothing to forfeit 1he
good will and confidence OF their constltu-
ents In the matter We are decidedly Of the
opinion that its ih4Iiries into IL lave been
The assertion that, ..Southern-
ers never did have an exalted opinion of
school Teachers" Is scarcely worthy of no.
tics. but We cannot iorhsar to say, that IL
comes with bad grace from q man who has
~ recently been the recipient OF the hospi.
ssd kindnesses Of ~ intelligent COM
as he has ever visited, while max
Inv & tour OF the state Of Texas.
Now that we have shown how many things
our neighbor by Implication makes 1t appear
that We did say. when In reality we said
nothing OF the kiad, we will emphasizes the
point to which our article was directed,
which was. hat the gentlemen OF the school
board whom we named kept their Intention
to correspond and correspondence with MIR.
Clark q profound secret until the day set for
the election of teachers; that 1t was sup.
posed by the people That Mr.. Catron would
be returned; that rs well rs they could the
people began TO clamor against his dIspIace-
ment, AMI that the board treated their pro-
tests without the least respect or consldera-
ton.
This Is y free, representative government.
where the right OF petition is a constitution
vi one and when Thomas Jefferson penued
the immortal declaration OF human rights,
the adoption Of which was celebrated last
Tuesday,, one OF his indictments against
George Ill. Was that he had not hseded the
Of the people. The fault we find
with the board is,that they did not give the
people y chancs to be heard, but ~arrogsntly
assuming that the servant knew more than
the Muster refused 10 let that master have
an opportunity to speak. We have no sort
OF personal interest In this matter excpnt
the public good the welfare OF the schools
anh the rights OF the people. 1t Is the In.
telligencer's duty as q public journal 10
speak out in behalf OF these, aud we shall
not be deferred from dom. SO, either by mis-.
repi ssentatlon or abuse, the latter of which
we are told has been INDUCED Ia more or
less by one or two OF the gentlemen crit,.
cized, even though In doing so we have to
tread ever so heavily upon the corns of per-
sonAl friends. The paper might be more
agreeable to some people II 1t was all tutiy
to Its friends and all bristles to its enemies.
but it would hardly be more useful 10 the
public.
In the mean time 1t remains true that
neither III. SCHOOL board or its qu0ndsm Or
gan has vet assigned to The people y single
good reason for Tue removal vi Mr.. Cstr0n.