Mexico weekly ledger., 1885-11-19
FACTS AND FIGURES.
The lntelligencer Agrees with
the Ledger
ON THE DUTIES OF THE PRESS In
REGARD TO IMPURITY IN
OFFICE.
The Ledger's Charges indicated.

- AfN16NA . $50 yhAN0tGtBhEVs 1
The readers of the LEDGER will re-
member that it charged T. B. Buck
ner with violating the constitution by
riding on a free railroad pass. He
returned it. The LEDGER also
charged that he collected illegal fees.
By reading records published in this
article our readers can see that some
more returning has been done.
When the LEDGER made these charges
some friends of the accused said the
LEDGER had no business finding fault
with the conduct of an official and
that we were attending to something
that did not concern us Or the public.
The press all over the state with one
exception warmly upheld the LEDGER.
This one exception was the Inteli-
sencer. This paper is now in new
hands. Its new editor is a fearless
Democrat. He is perhaps as we'll
acquainted with the ways OF politi-
clans and the duties of the press as
any man in the state. He believes
in purity in Office and will be subser-
Went to neither friend nor foe. The
following clipped from an editorial in
that paper last week shows just how
he stands in regard to matters Of this
kind:
"a political party cannot be expect
ed to hold the confidence of the peo-
pie unless it strives for honest meth
DDS, and party leaders who have not
the courage to point out and condemn
the shortcomings of the official repre-
sentatives of their organization are
unworthy of the position they assume
to fill. Especially should the press
be free from the slightest charge Of
subservlency. Public officials are
public servants entitled to due credit
for the efficient and upright discharge
of their duties but not free from cen.
sure when they fail to meet the just
expectations of the people,"
As we stated above 1t was claimed
that the LEDGER's statements in re
gard to illegal fees were untrue ant
we even heard it rumored that Mr.
Buckner had been Investigated ani
indicated, etc. We do not in
tend to go into particulars but viii
simply publish the following record.
! in only one case. The dates, as will
be seen, are very recent. The first il
a letter.
IHos. B. Buckner:
MEXICO, No., Oct. 26, 1885-SIR-
{ On the 31st day of last January
paid you a check on the Nationa
, Bank of Mexico amounting to $500
which you claimed as amount o
fines and costs then due against m
, and Barney Griswell on eleven in
dictments found against us at tn
previous October term Of the Crane
} jury. The %treasurer's receipts shoy
, that you accounted to him for $3.50
being four fines against myself an
three against Griswell at $40 each
Your fees in seven cases amounted t.
$35; other costs in eleven cases S55
amounting in all to $3.50. Or 10 re
, capitulate:
, Amount of draft on bank to you.......sioo Q
I Amount of fines In seven cases at
Your costs in seven cases. s; each. IS 60
. Amount over collected. ............... 80
Which if not returned in ten day
from this date I will bring suit upon
HAMILTON HALL.
The next is the statement fled be
fore Squire Harris:
3 STATE OF MISSOURI, |
9 COUNTY OF AUDRAIN.
Before D. H. Harris, ]. P. for Sal
River Township.
= Hamilton Hall, plaintiff,
VS..
Thomas B. Buckner, defendant.
Plaintiff states that ON the 31s
day of January, 1885, the defendan
was the prosecuting attorney Of Au
drain county. That on said day tn
plsintlff was indebted to the gtate Q
Missouri on certain judgments ren
dered against him and n Barne
Griswold, including costs, amounting
: to three hundred and seventy dollars
II That the defendant as p%rosecutap!
attorney of said county had full
" knowledge of the amount due on sal
, judgment, together with the amour
Il of the costs thereon, and the plaintiff
did not know. The defendant we
knowing that the full amount of sal
\ judgment and costs was three hun
u dred and ssventyldoliars represente
+ and stated to the plaintiff that tn
amount of said judgment wa fou
hundred dollars, and as such prose
- cutting attorney demanded that th
plaintiff pay the said sum of fou
d hundred dollars. The plaintiff. re
lying upon the statement of the de
feudant, did on said 31st day of jar
10 uary, 1885, pay to the defendant a
such prosecuting attorney the sum {
~ four hundred dollars to satisfy sal
'e Judgment and costs. That the d.
PENDANT then and there received sal
, money in his said official capacity o
"a the pretense that said sum was nece'
sary to satisfy said judgment an
al costs, when in truth and in fact s37
10 was the full amount Of said judgmer
~ and costs as aforesaid. That the d,
:. PENDANT after satisfying said juds
ment and costs by the payment
1870 kept and appropriated to b
W own use the balance OF said none
a. so received by him from the plaintiff
to-wit: the sun of thirty dollars.
$ Wherefore, by reason of the prem
ises the plaintiff says that on sal
31st day of January, 1885, the d.
2. fendent became indebted to him