The Russellville Democrat., 1888-08-16


 dIssect your answer and the public will discern your inwardness.
 Firstly you have become very consid. crate all at once, for the harmony and unity Of the Democracy of Pope county rather late in the action for such pa triotic dlsplay.
 Why did you not think of this during all the months you were striving to ar ray one section of the county against the other on this court house and coun- ty seat question? Why? Why, sim. ply because your very recent concern fer harmony and unity in the party is an afterthought, pretense. subtcr. fuge. The truth is, the Mail has been the mouthpicce for tho discontents and kickers in the party. It has been the organ of the faction who have all along shown an unwillingness to submit to the will of the people in this matter, and has lost no opportunity to insert every sheer and jibe against this sec ton and it's candidates, and tho citizens thereof, which would be calculated to array the bitterest prejudiccs in the minds of generous people. It was this feeling of petty spite and contempt ible spleen, which first actuated the Mail to open It's war upon myself, and the sham pretense that 1t was based up on any fair or Ie0itimst.s grievances on account of tte ppsiic printing is as hollow and false as your explanations are contradictory and illogical. Oh, 1; lay not the fiattering unction to your soul, sir, that am going to permit you to place me In false attitude as far as you have been able, and then slide out of 1t without showing up your true motives.
 You have inaugurated this conten. tion by an unprovoked. uncallsd for and voluntary attack on myself and friends. and you must take the conse- quences.
 As to whether you have or have not insinuated that you could have used my name against me, which you deny hay ing done let this extract from your is- sue of July 12th, tell:
 "Yes, Bro. Potts, we might have used your namo little heretofore, but for the fact that you was . candidate, and it was right, according to our idea. to give democrats equal chances"
 will now pay you my respects on the written articles and public printing. You say: "sFair Play and 'Who,' asked us if we would publish articles from them on that subject, but said nothing of what they intended writ ing. We Qnnocent we) knew they were going to write articles on that subject, but knew nothing of what they intended saying" Certainly you knew, you knew all about the subject on which they were going to write. be- cause as stated last week, they could only have known from your tongue and no ono else. You had just made trip out to Dover, to make inquiry about what was being said, and what your articles were stirring up on the subject of public printing, and when informed that no attention was paid them, you closeted yourself with "Who" one evening. deliv- ering the facts until you were sent for twice to go to supper. You as accessory in delivering the facts and your henchman as principal in writing them up. He as one of the writers and you the 61 cent editor, ad- hitting that you knew they were going to write on that subject, and then at- tempting to deny that you procured the authorship. Guilty Moore; far guiltier than before you hanged this about your neck. But not satisfied with admitting that you knew the subject on which these articles were to De written, you again say: i've retur ned him the 61 cents (which you know Is not the truth for 1t was only 56 cents) because he did not prom ise us the advertising" &c., and in the next sentence you say you base your claims "upon his promise for an equal division made us last August"
 We'll certainly the truth isn't in you any longer than you can get . chance to deny it: "He DID NOT PROMISE us the advertising" and Che did promise us an equal division"
 If consistency was virtde you would be shorn of its company and left stand ing alone writing and publishing con- tradictorv statements. Well, Mir. Edi- tor I send you 6l cents again, this time, for soap to cleanse your tongue.
 Respectfully,
 JAMKs P0TTs.