Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1886-05-01
DR.. wRIcHrs LAST.
His Close of tho cOntrovelsJ With Judge
Tyler.
To the Chronicle.

To the Chronicle.
regret the necessity OF adding few
words to my controversy with Judge
Tyler which for three weeks has occu-
pied portion OF your columns. AS
regards the Judges paper Of last week
Twill only reply to charge OF incon-
sistency which an incorrect statement
Of my report in the Nashville Union
justified him in making. The reporter
(who did not take down my report in
shorthand but simply listened to it,and |
at its close, wrote down what he could
remember Of it.) correctly says that
related two interviews with Judge
Tyler, but incorrectly made me say
that al both he had contended that the
old law was in force, not having been
specifically repealed in the law of 1885.
This was an error into which a reporter
relying upon his memory, might easily
fall, but it makes me state what is not
true, for, / think that the Judge him
self will remember that the validity Of
the statute OF 1885 as against that OF 1883
was not the subject of conversation at all
at our first interview; that my purpose
in calling was to ascertain who was the
Jail physician in order that the State
board of health might communicate
with him; that his answer was that there
was no regular Jail physician, for reasons
before stated.
No word was said at that interview
about the relative validity OF the two
laws from the simple fact that was at
that time unaware Of the existance OF
two.
This also acquits me of having charged
inconsistency on the Judge which |
never had the slightest intention of do
ing. What staggered me at the second
interview was to find new obstacle to
the execution of the law of 1886 Of
which had never dreamed.
Near the close of the Judges last paper
he says:
"Surely DR.. Wright must know that a
Jail physician elected under the special
act, for which am contending is not
appointed by me, is not removable at
my pleasure, and is not at all dependent
on me for his official authority"
lean only answer that at the only inter
view in which was informed of the mat
ter, Judge Tyler told me that no Jail ply
stefan had been elected under any act,
but the jailor was instructed to call in a
doctor when any one was sick without
having any elected physician; if any
change has been made in this respect l
have not been informed OF it, Under
such state OF things the attending ply
stefan, whatever he may be called, is, it
is true, under the orders for the time
being OF the county judge, for he. is the
only member OF the commission who
lives in town-or, if not under his
order then under those of the Jail SUI
perintendent, which is no better
However, freely admit that | had no
right to impute motives to the Judges
course; and, if what have said leaves
that Interpretation, l freely withdraw it
and apologize for it.
| must ask still few lines more
Aspace to express my regret that the
nfSssaie OF Judge Lurton has been intro
nuced into this matter; it was without
his authority or my intention.
In the body OF my report at Nashville
said that | had eminent professional
opinion to the effect that the act OF 1885
was of authority as against the earlier
act so far as they might be in necessary
conflict, without mentioning any name.
1t was in subsequent conversation
which I did not suppose was to be re-
ported that mentioned Judge Lurton
as having expressed such an opinion
I should add that his opinion was not, las
has been stated "a formal statement after
having consulted the statutes, but sim
ply expressed in conversation at the
dinner table. The name ought never
to have appeared. | have asked the
opinion of other lawyers besides, whose
answer was exactly in accordance with
his, and l think that Judge Tyler must
have given many decisions himself
based upon the general principle that
where two statutes are in necessary
conflict the later statute stands good
against the earlier.
But Judge Tyler ls',a lawyer and the
authorized expounder. of the law in
this county, and l am neither; 1 there
fore withdraw frow further contro-
versy.
DR.. D. F. WRIGHT.
Obituary.
Death hoe tbrown q oloOpo Ovnr tho