The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1882-02-11
THE EXPLANATION.

Mr.. C~orlett's frst determination TO
pay no heed to the voice of public opin-
ion yielded to ''sober sound %thought''
and he took the floor to explain. AS
to his point regarding the judgment ~
in the mandamus suit of the Colorado
Central railroad company, there is more
sound than substance to it. That man.
damus was simply to compel the county
commissioners to mako the bonds ne
getiable, by adding the words ''or
ord, T after the words Colorado Cen
trail Railroad Company" We did not
examine the record ourselves but a
county officer who did, informs us that
such is the fact. MI. Corlett we'll
knows that before the railroad company
was entitled to the bonds, it was bound
to execute a bond to carry out its agree
ment. And this bond was never re-
cuted. Why this talk of a judgmentp
1t is intended as a threat, but Mr..
Corlett well knows hat the railroad
company has no valid claim against the
county. If he doesn't know it, he has
erred in his search of the records, and
he should search again and become cor
rectly informed. The records are pub
lie: they can be investigated.
AS to the question of ~veracity be-
tween Mr.. Corlett and his friends, we
have Mr.. G.. on the n side, and
Messrs. Thos. Sturgis, I. S. Bartlett
and the other members of the Laramie
county delegations on the other side.
In the couucil yesterday morning Mr..
Sturgis fatty contradicted Mr.. Corlett
and stated unqualiiedly that Mr.. Cor
lett had promised to support the bill as
it was then drafted, and as Mr.. Corlett
understood it, because he had assisted
in drawing it up. MI. Corlett asked
Mr.. Sturgis to remember of the reserva-
tions made him (Corlett). Mr.. Sturgis
emphatically stated that no reservations
whatever were made. The people can
Judge between the two men.
MI. Corlett explains that he is OPP
posed to railroad subsidy bills on prin-
ciple. But he does not oppose house
bill No. Is on this ground. He swal-
lows the bill and principle and simply
desires that the wishes of the railroad
company be subserved, namely, that
the Limitation be extended to 1884. 1t
will be noted in Mr.. Corlett's explana-
ton that he demolishes his own plat
form of principle, because, after stating
this point he proceeds to say that he
informed certain gentlemen that he
would offer an amendment to extend
the time of building the road.
1t will occur to the reader as a very
curious fact that Mr.. Corlett announces
that he opposed the third section of the
bill all by himself. That section is not
opposed by the U. P. Co., and the in
ference is that it does object to the
other sections. That section IS the
only one that Mr.. Corlett claims to dis
approve as to himself, and the inference
is that he fights the other sections be-
cause the railroad company desires him
to do so.
We review Mr.. Corlett's speech as it
appears on the minutes, copied from
his own manuscript report thereof.
But 1t was a vastly different speech
from the one that was actually de-
livered. The h%arshness, inelegancy OF
expression, and the apology for having
talked foolish in his FIRST speech, were
all carefully omitted in the written re-
port made by himself.