Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-11-06

they have paid for it, but how it was
done remains to be seen.
Their reports and the county treas
urer's have been SO far apart for the
last two years that the school meeting
refused 70 receive them, and l do not
know how their accounts stand at
present. l was in favor OF uniting the
tM districts because about three -fifths
now in No. 6, were taken from No. l,
and by re-aniting the two we would
only add to the original territory OF
No. /, a strip on the south averaging
not more than oue-half mile in width,
which would leave me as far from
school as any one, except n or two
who are nearer other schools if they
desire to 20.
The statement that No. l is eight or
ten miles square is false as it is foolish.
1t was originally three miles one way
and four miles the other, and therefore
contained twelve square miles and not
81 or 100 as they tell you.
l am for strong districts and good
schools, even though l be in the most
remote corner. But after all it does
seem Imaginable that my nomination by
a party so vastly in the minority should
send such a thrill of alarm through the
ranks of the unterrified and SO arouse
the mud-throwers of bourbOmism, and
one is constrained to ask what would
happen if The parties were more equally
divided. [ will not intrude upon your
space to discuss the legality of No 6,
as | am informed that those VINO were
taken from No. l, against their will,
intend to test that matter in the courts.
aIpn a1,,l,ln uyythnrt y1oolt,,~
guilty to your charge that l am a poor
man: yet ii Is a happy reflection that
when we step upon our own threshold,
it is ours, paid for by honest toll, and
that no anxious creditor stands with
ont, and that honesty, honor, integrity
and intelligence b%elongeth not alone to
the rich and arrogant. Respectfully,
M. NJ GLADIsH.
The quarrel about the school bust
ness is hone OF ours. 1t can be settled,
we suppose, by those who are parties
to it; but the concluding paragraph
we desire to notice. The campaign is
over, and dcmagogy should be over
with it. We Will be charitable enough
to suppose Mr.. Gladish really thinks
we were ridiculiug his poverty. Moth
ing could be further from our thoughts.
M. Gladish is rich in comparison with
the writer, who cannot boast that the
home which shelters his children is all
paid for, and we should despise IT.
selves were we capable of making light
of honest poverty. We have a great
deal of contempt for purse pride. 1t is
neither money nor the lack of it that
makes the man. But the demagogic
claim was made that Mr.. Gladish was
a better representative Of the farming
class because he practically operated a
farm, and we quoted his assessment
to show that that was not true to a
very alarming extent when he was
possessed of but one COW and one
horse and no farming implements. We
not know that Mr.. Gladish has not
a plethora of government bouds. He
may be wealthy for all we know. De-
spite the falsehOods that have been
to show that the Intelligencer
IS a bonanza to its owners it has still
lett us poor in pocket. Mr.. Gladish
Is mistaken when he thinks We are
either rich or arrogant. Well wager
penny we labor more hours every
day than he does, for our sustenance,
md much more steadily, as there is no
such treadmiil any where as newspaper
work. But we do have a hearty con-
Tempt for the demagogy now so COM
mon OF appealing for votes to the pre-
udices of classes. 1t is class legisla-
ion that ais the country now. |: