Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-06-24


Morrison had made the representation
would not countenance him for Q
moment. But did he do it? He says
he did not. Mr.. Houck says he did.
must believe one and disbelieve the
other. The circumstances surrounding
the matter led ME to believe Mr.. Nor
rison. They are as follows:
Mr.. Houek's first representation is
that he furnished Mr.. Morrison, as his
attorney. with $500 to bribe Judge
Bruihl, Judge Rubottom, John III. Ra.
ney and myself with, upon Mr.. Nor
rison's representation to him that that
was necessary to get the extension Oi
time on the contract above mem toned.
And did not believe this representa-
ton for the reasons
1st. | did not think that he was a
man who would furnish money to
bribe courts and other people with and
take the risk of being indicted and
prosecuted for it.
ID. l do not think Mr. Morrison is q
man who would bribe any one or pre-
tend that he desired to do so.
Sd. / do not think Mr.. Houck could
be made to believe that any one could
bribe the men named.
4th. The consent of two of the
Judges Of the county court was all Mr..
Houck need, d to get the extension de-
sired, and l therefore thought it un.
reasonable that he could be made to be-
lieve that it was necessary to brib any
one besides those two judges.
5th. I could have no voice in granting
Or refusing the extension, and there
fore could not think that Mr.. Houck
could be made to believe that 1T was
necessary to pay me money in the
matter at all.
9Th. Mr.. Morrison says the company
gave him 5000 fee in the case and
gave reasonable explanation of how
it came to pay him so much. But that
is no affair of mine. 1t is none of my
business how much the company pays
its attorneys. or how it gauges their
fees. Therefore don't think it neces-
sary for me to repeat bis explanation.
7th. They both say that the agree
ment to pay Morrison 5000 was made
in Greenville and that the two Judges
and Mr.. Raney and I were all in town
at the time. and Mr.. Houck does not
claim that he ever mentioned the mat
ter to any of US. although he had op-
portunity to do so at the time and fire.
quent1y afterwards.
CIils ne uEst llfilG he IOlO IL tnaL
have any Information of was more than
six months after he says it occurred,
and was just few days after / had re-
fused to deliver him the deed in ques-
ton, and while be was yet insisting
that / ought to give it to him. And
even then he told it privately to u
friend of mine as secret and threat
ened to publish it. and spoke in the
same connection of my being a candi-
cate for office and said it would defeat
me when it was published. I did not
think these circumstances argued
much for the truthfulness of the story.
9th. Mr.. Morrison and MIR. Houck
both say that the manner of paying
the 5000 to Mr.. Morrison was as fol-
lows: Mr.. Houck gave Mr., Morrison
his check for $500 at the time the work
was done. and then gave him his note
for $500, which was paid several months
afterward. And this didn't strike me
as being the way that corruption funds
would be likely to be handled.
B
Mr.. HOuck's second representation
was that Mr.. Morrison told him that
would give up the swamp land deed
for So 900. This did not believe for
the following reasons:
1st. Mr.. Morrison was with me
when inspected the work and knew
that decided that it was not done ac-
cording to contract, and heard me say
that I would not deliver the deed to
Mr.. Houck, but that / intended to re-
turn it to the county court. And this
being the case I did not think it
reasonable that he would tell Mr..
Houck that 1 would give it up for S2,-
900 or any other sum.
End. Mr.. Houck told this at the same
time and in the same way to the same
party that he told the story about the
$500, and as part of that story, and
those circumstances led me to disbe-
lieve this as well as that.
Sd. Both men knew that my return
ing the deed to the county court would
not invalidate it; aud that after it was
SO returned the court could, and would,
deliver it to Mr.. Houck if he was ell
titled to it. Therefore, proposal to
have me paid 81 900 to get me to de-
liver it directly would have been
foolish one, thought.
4th. Mr.. Houck was in Greenville
soon after these things were told and
he was subpenad to go before the
grand jury, which was then i'm session;
but instead of going before the grand
Jury be left the town. 1t seemed to
me if there had been any truth in his
story he would have been willing TO
tell 1t to the grand jury, and have the
guilty parties indicted.
C.
Added to the above reasons for be-
Iieving Mr.. Morrison's denial was my
knowledge of the two men:
Ist. I had known Morrison intimate
ly for good many years and had had
a good deal of business with him, and
I had always known him to be an hon.
orable, high toned gentleman of integ-
rIty and veracity, and had neve. known
him to be guilty of wrong doing.
ID l had but little knowledge of
Houck. had had but very little busi-
ness with him before. And at the
very time I was asked to believe bis
story he was demanding this deed of
me to 10000 acres of the county's lands
when, in my judgment, he hadn't paid
for it ut all, and | was confident that
he knew he was not justly entitled to
it. And this did not prepare my mind
very well to believe the story he told;
and especially when / considered all
the other circumstances under which
it was told.
Considering all of the above and
much more that J could not take time
now to mention. unless / thought it
was necessary, still think was justi-
fed in believing Mr.. Morrison and in
refusing to repudIate him on the word
of Mr.. Houck, alone.
And the Cape Democrat seems to
think it monstrous because I did not
deliver the swamp land deed to Houek's