The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1884-05-23
NOT PROVED.

NOT PROVED.
With patience that had been better
spent we admit, in a better cause, We
have waded through the seven col.
umns of sophistries, subterfuges and
falsehoods that make up the Courdnr'
rebuttal of our last weeks article, and
we could not wish any better vindica.
ton than would be given us if our
readers could be persuaded to do the
same: Not single statement that we
made last week has been disproved
and we again assert that in that arti-
Gle we stated the absolute facts in the
case. Concerning the points wherein
the issue of veracity is raised between
the editor of the Courant and ourselves,
we are very willing to abide the YER
, dict of the people. Concerning state
ments that depend upon the testimony
ofoutside parties, although 10th to dc
so, we feel it due to ourselves to say a
few words.
The COurdnt charged the REGISTER
boys with being engaged in what it
calls the "despicable combination" OF
last fall, and says that J. w. and A.
C. Scott agreed to support Mattocks
and were parties to the combination.
For the substantiation of these charges
it relies on letters from VIM. Mattocks,
Chas. Knowlton and Jas. Burns.
WIN. NrATToCKs SAYS:
81 can't be positive that
there was any of. the Scots
in the room at the Ieland) hotel ex-
cept the Doctor. \ There
wasn't any objections raised that 1
heard, only those raised" Perfectly
true. AS We said last week, J. w. and
G. f. Scott were at the Leland hotel.
They went there, We reiterate, with no
idea that the Mattocks combination
was still thought of. They raised no
objections for the reasons stated last
week, although G. F. Scott did say
privately during the caucus to J. A.
Heath, e. p. Dunbaugh and perhaps
one or two others of the Humboldt del
egation, that the REGISTER couldn't
support Mr.. Mattocks, and the organ
izers of the combination knew all the.
time that the REGISTER would not
support Mattocks. In answer to the
query as to why we did not warn Mr..
Worst, we can only repeat that from
Friday morning until the caucus met
Saturday afternoon we supposed that
the idea OF putting up ticket without
his name on it, had been entirely
abandoned. "a. G. Scott was not at the
Leland Hotel and knew nothing of the
combination until it was sprung in tile
convention.
MR.. KNowLToN SAYS:
"a. c. Scott said, Il did not want to
see Worst beat,'" Does this prove
that A. c. Scott "was a party to the
combination aud agreed to support
Mattocks pr
MIR. BURNS SAYS:
"The Co,rdat is wrong in its asser- |
ton that A. c. Scott consented to the |
nomination of and agreed to support
Mr.. Mattocks for sheriff. I, perhaps,
had as much to say to A. G. Scott |
about Mattocks' nomination as any
person previous to the convention and
he invariably declared the REGISTER
could not support Mdttocks." Does
this prove that A. G. Scott "was par
ty to the combination and agreed to
support Mattocks ~ Mr.. Burns fur.
Their says: "DB. Scott said it was
and very good ticket. He
could see no objection to it." Adj
hitting this to be true, although DIR.
Scott has no recollection of having
made any such statement, land he Ger
tainiy did not urge the REGISTER to
support Mattocks) does it prove
hat the REGISTER boys were "parties
% the combination and that J. w. and
A. c. Scott agreed to support Mat
5ocks ," We submit that the Courant
has utterly failed to prove either of the
above allegations. |,
Recurring to Mr.. Knowlton's letter /;
% Mr.. Slower, Mr.. Knowlton says,
"A. C. Scott said, Il did not want to /;
zee Worst beat And that is all he !.
avs. He adds the unwarranted con- ,
fusion that.he meant, 81 did not in :
end that it should go that far" The
1ourdnt with characteristic unfairness ,
quotes the last as the exact acords of ,
\. c. Scott and says, 81 (Scott) did :
lot intend that it should go that far"
nd emphasizes it with "mark the
words ~ The only possible consola-
ion he can get from Knowlton's letter
in this Misrepresentation of it, and
re submit that that paltry perversion
ught to damn the whole article, even
there were not score of others of O
ne same kind. ''Garbling statements s,
the course of the whipped fellow in a a
ontroversy." e,
AS matter of fact, when Mr.. Knowl- Al
m ''twitted" him about the success of te
your combination A. G.. Scott said u.
| effect that he had nothing to do
18th it and added in effect that he did bt
Of want to see Worst beaten, and we G.
ell certain that Mr.. Knowltcn will "a