Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-10-27

solved to be avenged by attacking our article
IN tOte
Many will call to mind that they perform
ed trick here at that time, which not only
failed to accomplish the ends they expected,
but actually lost votes for Houk. They
therefore determined that something must
be done to compensate for their loss; or at
least their course leads us to infer that such
was their calculations We inclose here
with copy of their device, and bespeak for
it close inspection:
To THE REPUBLICAN
"We, the undersigned, citizens of Coal
Greek and vicinity, do hereby certify that
the communication, which appeared ia the
Knoxville DAILY CHRONICLE, of September
28th purporhng to be written from Coal
Creek, and giving an account of the speech
as made here by Judge Houk and William
Rule is gross mlsre presentation of facts,
well known to us, and was Intentionally de-
signed to create an impression IN Rules
favor elsewhere III the second Congressional
district"
To the above is appended long list of
names, purporting to be signers. We do
not think we exaggerate when we say that
at least eighty five per cent of these never
saw the article referred to, and could not,
when their names went on that paper, pro
duce single statement III 1t, either IN letter
or substance. Some of them cannot read
or sign their names; some signed 1t not
knowing the nature of the document, sup
posing 1t to be a different instrument alto
gether; others signed it not caring what it
was, and would sign anything In the name
of Houk, regardless of its contents, if
called on by his subs to do SO.
But the names of several good men ap-
pear in that list, who are our personal
friends, and with whom we have discussed
the matter. Some of them tell us that they
had not read the article, and signed the
certificate upon the statements of others
who represented that it assailed the charac-
ter of all who were in Houk's crowd. Others
have stated to US in writing their objections
to the article; while others say they have
no recollection of ever signing the certif-
cate which appeared in the Republican
No two of the statements filed with us
agree, altogether, as to the points misrep-
resented-some pointing to one clause,
while others point to a different one
This is rather singular attl-
tude for men who are pointing
Out STOb5 MISREPRESENTATION VI 1dClb well
known to them, but it Is nevertheless true
A gross Misrepresentation should be so
clear that there can be no mistake as to the
meaning, no ambiguous phrases or express
sons, and no disagreements among the criti-
ques as to points misrepresented. Our
friends seem to have been lost on all these.
But we will notice the principle objections
In which they would impeach our veraclty.
They first lake issue with US as to the part
played by Houk and his friends In regard
to securing and occupying the house. As
our reply, we beg leave to submit the state
ment of Rev. Joel Bowling.
1t runs about as follows: [ was busily en-
gagged at my mines, when a messenger came
to me with note from Mr.. K. NJ. Chap
man. did not read the note for want of
time, but asked the bearer what Chapman
wanted. He replied that Chapman wanted
the Baptist Church for Rule to speak in. 1
took my pencil, and wrote on the back of
the note Eyes, and welcome" and remarked
that rule could speak there and Houk, too, if
he wished. A day or SO later, W. H. Ed
wards and H. M. Madden came to me for
the house for Rules use. 1 replied to each
of them that l had granted the house to
Chapman for Rules use, and SO extended to
them the use of the house for Rule, and
added, as before, that Houk was welcome to
speak there, too, if he would meet Rule in
joint discussion. Meanwhile heard some
intimations that there was chicanery on the
part of Houk's friends as to
joint discussion, and on the
morning preceding the speaking
at night, l repeated to DIR. Price that l had
granted the use of the house to three diff
ferent parties (referring to Chapman, Ed
wards and Madden) for Rules use, and ad-
ded that l hoped Houk would meet him
there, and discuss the issues, even if he
failed to do SO at other points. With this
the matter was dropped.
In regard to the above we will add that
when we applied for the house, and was
told that it had been granted to Chapman
for Rules use, we reminded Mr. Bowling
that Chapman was for Houk, and that he
must have granted the house for Houk
use, inasmuch as Houk would not speak
with Rule. To this Bowling replied that
he had granted the house for Rule and
Houk both but if they would not speak
together he wanted Rule to have the house
We went at once to Chapman and laid
Bowhng's statements before him. Chap
man put us off with the reply that we
would have a joint discussion, as every
body was in favor of it. We said thatif Houk
ed, and asked if Houk would do that Chap
man replied that he would and the matter
rested there until the time for the speaking,
when the trick was played.
From this it will be seen that Chapman
and Price both understood how Bowling
intended the house to be used, and we will
leave them to tell us whether they left
Judge Houk In ignorance of the situation,
and allowed him to intrude, or whether
they disregarded the conditions under which
the house was granted, and resolved to take
advantage of Mr.. Rule before his arrival.
We will also allow the public to decide
whether or not we grossly misrepresented
this matter, when we alluded to it.
They next object to our statements rela-
tive to the sizes of the two audiences.
To this we need only reply, that nothing
definite was said in regard to the size of
either crowd, and hence gross misrepre-
sentation in this particular was impossible.
But the principal objection seems to be
the phraseology used In speaking of the
character of Mr.. Rules crowd We stated
that it was IAN audience composed of the
best citizens of the place" This was the
straw that broke the cancels back. They
said that this statement implied that all
of the best citizens were at Rules
speaking, and that none were left to hear
Houk. We will just state that it does not
imply any such thing, and if those who
make this objection would study the genius
of our language for a while, they would see
it at glance Moreover, if these DIRECTORS
had have read carefully what we said about
the Houk crowd, they would have found
where we spoke of the good citizens of the
place. Furthermore, if they are SO fearful
that gross Misrepresentation will be per-
petrated on the public, they might have
corrected the Republican in its
when it distinctly stated that he spoke here
to crowd of only about thirty. We can
furnish them certificate of one who count
ed it and says that it was at one time more