San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1885-06-04
Our County Judge on the Rampage.

| bSAooWAoho w XIV PAnCo W iVnk COm-
munication from Judge Kone. In order to
find room for it, we had to condense it by
putting it in small type. In more ordinary
type il would make about twice the space it
does. We think our readers will all agree
that. considering the course of the writer and
his sympathizers towards us recently,t the un-
reasonable length of the article, and espe-
cially its style and matter; crammed as it is
with the vilest and most unwarranted
insinuations against our personal integrity
that we would have been fully justified in
declining, without ceremony, its publica-
ton. We admit it, not because of any cour-
tesy due. but because we wish to show those
who would apply the gag on free press in
this country that we do not muster in their
squad, and do not fear the fullest investiga-
ton. We will confess to another reason for
admitting tho article, and that is, that the
exhibition which Judge Kone makes Of him
self must, as we believe, 60 far to satisfy
every dispassionate reader that his case is q
bad one. To become angry and abusive at
the decorous expression of an honest differ
ence of opinion, is pretty conclusive evil
dence that the man who does SO is in the
wrong. We scarcely know how to reply to
such oonglomeration of awkwardly strung
together odds and ends, largely irrelevent
to any issue we have raised, and shall not at
tempt to do so in detail, but will merely no.
tice some OF the leading points which have
any pertinence.
The Judge, in conversation on
bringing over his article, confessed his ina
bility to understand why We should have
criticized the Commissioners Court and
himself, and admitted that he could see no
personal reason for it. We had been friend
ly with all the members, had complimented
many of their acts, were in actual possession
of tho small patronage they had to dis
pense-why, then, should we desire any
trouble with them? To fair, logical mind,
there could be but one answer-that we felt
it to be our duty, however unpleasant. But
not 80 with Judge Kone. He insisted that there
must be something in the dark about it
that we had been instigated by some one
else-and said one main object of his article
was to ''draw out" this supposed hidden
agency. We will therefore proceed to state
Just how the matter originated, and in so
doing shall incidentally be enabled to an
swer good part of the Judges article.
He charges, as other members of the
court charged, that we had long 'ding-
donged" them about not letting out their
work to the lowest bidder; and so, they
said, they thought they would apply our ad-
vice to the printing. Now, there is scarcely
any truth in this statement. The truth is,
that from the building of the Jail down, tho
we saw clearly how things were being man
aged, yet, being always reluctant to censure,
and as the public interest did not appear to
be materially suffering, we said nothing
on the subject, as our files will show. On
the contrary, we complimented the manage
ment whenever we could honestly do no.
but all this was forgotten, at the first breath
of honest censure. We repeat, we did not
harp on the courts failure to advertise for
bids, merely abiding to it once in recent
article on the court house grounds. So that
pretext for sending off the printing will not
serve at all. We had, in fact, contract
with the clerk, who gives out nine-tenths of
the work, in accordance with the price-list
of Jennings Bros, (about st. Louis rates, as
we have stated, but rather under than over),
and had done the work to his satisfaction
So that even if they got promised reduc-
ton of five per cent, as stated, on the small
expenditure involved, it was no sufficient in
ducement to send the work away from the
county seat, and put it into untried hands
who did not have the facilities for doing it.
The Commissioners knew we would not do
it for less than we had been doing it at. We
told them we would continue to do it at that
no less-and did not consider this bid,
as we already had it at that. We are still
satisfied that it was "cut and dried" that the
Kyle man should have it.
We have digressed little in order to meet
several of Judge Kone's points and bubbles
in this connection. We will now return,
and state how this controversy originated.
The FREE Press, as We have stated, had
made little if any criticism on the peculiar
methods of the Commissioners court, but
had frequently commended what was COM
mendable in their action. Thus matters
stood till the February term. At that time
one of the new members elect, and former
Commissioner, our former friend, Peter
Schmitt, called on us as usual. and stated
that the object of that term was to close up
old business nothing more. That he SO
believed, we do not doubt. But in few
DAYS Mr.. Northcraft and the Commissioners
appeared on the square taking measurements,
and il was announced there was to be new
courthouse fence. 1t had been talked OF in
former tunes, but no one outside was con-
templating anything of the kind at that
time. The old fence only needed a few re-
pairs, to be about as good as new. and was
actually better and handsomer than the con-
dition of the grounds inside. There was but
one possible justification for building new
one in such hot haste, and that was, after in
GLIDING the additional space, to put the
whole in q condition corresponding with the
new fence. In the FREE Press of Feb. 20.
lust after our return from New Orleans,
after noticing the completion of the fence,
- -, rl;,,a,t;ncr fta handaonie appear-