Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1882-09-30
Reply to 'RaiIrOader.H
MARTINsBURG. Sept. %

NA BAs ~.
Eds. Independent:
In your last issue there appeared
an article personally referring TO
myself, and criticising my course
in the last Legislature. | am asked
to "Rise and Explain my vote
on what the author of the article
referred to is pleased to term the
"Wilson anti railroad bill.o
The real facts in the case are asUfuI-
IN perverted and missiated for the
purpose of doing me personal in
jury. If the gentleman who pro-
Cured the publication ofthe arti-
Gle, and who is, of course, respon-
sible for the attack upon me
thinks that even by bis wilful
misrepresentation of me he has
placed me in any sort OF a diem
ma, he and those who cooperate
with him, will allow me TO OBJ
serve that they are sadly mis-
taken. 1t Is an unkind thing for
anyone to do, and especially is it
unkind from one who has on more
than one occasion, in the presence
of several reliable witnesses, ex-
pressed an opinion totally at vari-
ance with the views expressed in
the article referred TO. But | am
led to believe by the very men
the railroaders- whom he has thus
unfairly and uDjustly sought to
prejudice against me, that he has
sadly missed his mark. And now
let nae "rise and explain The
gentleman charges in substance,
that as a member Of the last legis-
lature / voted against the interests
ofthe railroad men and the bust
ness men of the community. That
is all there is in his communica-
ton, and it is all he intended to
say. Knowing full well that 1 for
years worked with the railroad
men in the shops, and that | grew
up to manhood as toiler in their
midst, he believed / had friends
amongst them, and great many
of them might thus-and thus
only-be induced to vote against
me at the coming election.
The bill to which he so ingeni-
ously refers was one offered at the
session OF the legislature OF 1882,
and provided that no railroad in
this State should discriminate
against the farmers and other
shippers within the State in favor
of Western shippers. In other
words the bill sought TO prevent
railroad companies from charging
more for the transportation of
stock and merchandise from points
within our State than is charged
Western shippers for the same
class Of freight. For that bill /
voted, and no one knows better
than the gentleman who attacks
me that there can be no just criti-
cism of that vote. On the other
hand does my critic remember
how he has hitherto expressed
himself? Has he forgotten what
he said in a conversation had with
me in the presence of witness
who remembers it, on the pave
ment in front OF the lutheran
church, on q certain OCCASION ?
Does he remember what he said
on another occasion in the pres
ence OF witness in front Of DIR.
Myers Office? And does he forget
what transpired on another occa.
sion i'm the presence of a witness in
the office Of the INDEPENDENT ?
Does he forget that | voted against
a certain other bill Wilson's anti
railroad billy, that If adopted
would have been detrimental to
the public interest, but for which
he singularly fails to give me
credit? l voted against that bill,
and we'll he knows 1t. Ia brief,
does my friend intend to compel
me to refresh his memory on all
these points through the press
authenticated by good evidence :?
Finally, will he go to the same
trouble to circulate the issue of this
paper as he did to distribute last
weeks issue containing his criti-
cism of me? And now word In