The Home advocate. (Farmerville, La.) 1885-1???, 1885-09-11

said, receive and take into his
possession certain property, naIl'e-
Iy, seventeen hundred dollars. OF
money belonging to the parish OF
Grant, tor and in the name OF
Graut parish of Grant, did receive
said money, and did embt zZle the
said money, then and there,'' etc,
etc.
In addition TO the foregoing we
have IL brief, Which we are assured
Is IN the haad~riting Of tie editor OF
the Furmcrril'e Gazette, that shows
conclusively that when he pcnned
the sentence accusing us of uttering
an untruth, he was guilty not only
of gross journalistic discourte>y
but stamped his own assertion with
lalsity Of the Yorst.kild. Had our
statements proved untrue, we could
have pleaded ignorance in extern
uation. In 1877 he investigated the
bill and wrote a brief for Rutland,
claiming the Indictment to he de-
tectivc in four essential particulars.
We shall only print his first al
legation, which substantiatcs the
truthfulncss Of our statement that
Rutland was indicted as tar col
tect0r:
The bill of Indictment is defect
i've. LIST. 1t is alleged that W. il.
Rutland ''by virtue OF his position
as Tax Collector, reed, ETC." De-
PENDANT not having held this office,
and the averDent Of his capacity
being one of substance, the State
cannOt amend under section 1917
II. s..
So much for the mares nest the
Gazette editor imagines he has un-
earthed The Indictment Was
ridiculous in its inception, e1ron-
eOuS in fact, and the district attor-
ncy SO proclaimed 10y his action in
having a molle prosequi entered.
Judge Rutland stands before the
world hoDorably acquitted in the
eyes of the law, not having escaped
by a bare technicality, but by vir-
tue of the business Of his cause. As
we have stated, it was case of
persecution for political effect, and
the editor of the Gazette in giving
credit to the charge does great
wrong, that should he beneath his
dignity.
In all the letters and extracts
published by the Gazette there is
not all expression that is damaging
to Judge Rutland: and we are sat
isfied that discriminating public
will so decide upon perusing tlem.
AS to the letter written by Rutland
to Judge Richardson, it was writ
ten by Il client to his attorney, and
as such should be- held sacred,
though there is nothing in it to De-
token guilt. Feeling that he was
being viciously bounded, as we
have explained in former articles,
Judge Rutland stood in needless
dread of coming to Colfax, us this
letter plainly indicates, but. upon
receiving the assurance Of judge
Richardson and others that his old
Republican enemies were rowerless
to do him bodily or other harm. he
came up voluntarily and met and
retuted the charge against him.
Ifthe editor of the Gazette will
carefully and dispassionately read
and digest the letter he received
from Judge Richardson, he will
find he has done violence in con-
strulngit to the detriment of.Judee
Rutland. We do not like to sus-
pect brother journalist of sinister
motives, but if this thing continues
we shall be forced to believe that
there is a personal interest to. be
served, and not the public. An
investigation might develop some
choice reading la Farm eryille
Gazette's articles, should we feel