The Copiah signal. (Hazlehurst, Miss.) 1882-1883, 1883-06-22
J.P. MATTHEWS 4 A. B. LOWE,
To j. nj. Norman,

ut issue. What is the issue? IL Is
This, Was the act of Mr.. Norman,in
rushing into print TO prove his re-
port correct Leforc n trial in the
courts, correc.? and at the same time
brand ~ US having done Col, Cook
iniuslice,we acting on the committee
with him2 Did this act show un over
supply of egousln9 We snyit does
and will prove it by his own words.
Then Us TO his first charge, I'VE have
published an article cndeavoring to
bring ccEsurc, DC, upon ,nc," in re.
ply to the charge, we say, you cir,
forced the issue by your over zeal to
appear in print, and the unwarrant'
cd charge against us, which We now
p' oppose to prove by our own words,
that you have perverted the truth.
Frst-'l did not call Oh you to CT
plain, The Signal did Then the
caption of your communication bad.
Is hclies you, viz; Gross injustice TO
Cook.-lt Is now in order Tor Mats
lhcws and Lowe to ariscand explain.
What was this sir, but u charge, that
we as MEN shou,l, feel called upon
to answer, and repcl The SANDER,
which you have adr"illy attempted
to perlniraG on usY Let honest men
answer, aud say, il you don't pcrvert
the truth when sou say, i did no,
call on them, the Signal did, You
say, they give no explanation but
attack me- and this is where the shoe
pinches, and why he rushed for prin-
ler's ink. We arc willing that the
public be The judge in this matter
aud not you. What did your infalli
bic report and card that convin
ccd all intelligent men amount to?
Sir, you should how your head in
shame, for attempting to SANDER Mr.
Cook Us you have in your report
Why? Because il your report be
true. Mr. G. was u filter subject for
the insane asylum, than the office Ut
sheriff, but We arc proud 10 say il is
untrue and your own figures go far
TO prove It..
Your report proves untrue in this.
on n settlement with Mr. G. las, year
The Board Gr supervisors allowed
him $G4i l0,l00, he afterwards re-.
turned $50 00,saying the Board had
allowed that amount more than YVES
coming to him. Why did he return
this $50 if The counly,per your 'vc:y
intelligent report was due him over
$4,000? Will you give u little light
on this, for it leeds lumina,ihe?-
Again you say, the discussion ihro'
The papers will not make j! difficult
to get fair and impartial jury DC.
Shame on you for asserting 30 ride.
ulous q proposition, and then prov
ing il false by your own words. We
again hurl the question in your
tcell,why did you rush into print to
comment on your report? Answer,
that Mr. Cook have justice done and
not bear the odium of being de-
Ruller, EVEN durihg the POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN This tells his motivc,to
warp aud prejudice public sentiment
against The idea of Mr. &. being q
defaul,cr, and TO have justice done
Mr. c. Who deals out justice, this
little Insignificant clerk, or q jury Of
twelve unprecedented men under the
instruction OF the court? We think
The latter. and have never seen any
law promoting Mr. Norman TO the
position of dispenser OF Justice
Again, i asserted that gross irjus'
,ice had been done Mr. Cook as my
opinion, in which opinion, the hest,
most fair minded and intelligent
men. who have read my report aud
card agree with me- Here, sir, by
your own words, you have forcstalI.
cd tho best and most intelligent men
of The county, 10 that extent. they
agree with me- Now sir, would you
consider us competent jurors in the
present case? Certainly not. Then
b, the same reasoning, those whom
YOU lave persuaded, by your inrin'
chile art. are incom pctent.
Then your denial Of calling on US
to explain and your object and pur-
pose for which Won rushed into print
arc proven AID clinchcd 10y your
own mords. notwithstanding your
denial to the contrary. Il made no
default in the discharge of my Off
cIal duly You didn't? Lets quote
YOU q little for the proof, the cash
book is q public record in the office,
and though am the custodian, &c,
| am not she private servant to an
ticipute and crafty unsolicited the
wishes OF even those seli'appOlnied
inquisitors of the people, Were you
not one otShose sclt-arpoin'ed in
qu,sitors, whose duty it was to ex'
anime the cash book? ! was. AS
one of the committee, do you not
know, that the examination of the
cash book was essential to full and
fair investigation? Most assuredly
you did. Did VIC not call for al! re-
cords pertaining to The collectors
Office? Certainly. Did the cash hook
form any part Of the record? Ger.
tainly. Then You were guilty OF
Withholding this book from insPec.
ton, knowing as you did its import.
ancc in the investigation. Acts rs,
page SO and 81, sec. 56-57,provides
a \