The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1891-08-07
onr Mayor Once More.

In Sundays Capitol we were again en-.
tertained with one of the Mayors literary
productions. Though headed Another
Squelcher," the article was Disappointing.
But in extenuation Of the Mayors failure,
may be stated that he Lad just been de-
feated in his conspicuous bout in the
Haisley case, and when the article was
written had not rid himself Of the cold
and disagreeable perspiration occasioned
by his easy defeat in thatsintensely excit-
ing but harmless combat.
But whatever the cause, the article was
disappointing and we are sorry. For
instance, in reply to his first article, we
said it was not our. business to "tag after
the Mayor and for "otficial information
we visited the clerk s.office and examined
the records and obtained our information
therefrom. In reply to which Mr.. Ander-
son says: 'sMr. Bittinger knows that he
was not too distinguished to tag tc my
office, three.or four.days after Haisley was
arrested, and collect a bill of $15 to pay
the printers" And this our Mayor calls
"squelcher" and actually seems to lament
having raid the BILL This part OF the
Mayors article is so puerile and unlike him
that we must suspect that it is vicari-
Gus Interpolation. 1t is iust:such.a reply
as we might expect from his favoritc To-
cal paper.
Accusing US Of Ignorance" and "mal-
ice,' Mr. AndersonEhas signally failed in
either of his articles to show where we
made a single misstatement and falls back
on the worn out ''all saw that the clever
constructor of falsehood generally
weaves into his fabrication some element
OF truth 3" The. Mayor is sadly put to.
Accusing US last. week of Ignorance
he now styles US clever" Blu: the
Mayor is simply auttering. There was no
fabrication about Mr. Haisley being ar
rested and arrested at the Mayors in
stance.
After good deal slnore laundering,
saying much and denying nothing,
Mr.. Anderson concludes his article as
follows:
This is all have to say to or about the
BANNER Perhaps too much importance
has been attached to the utterances of a
sheet whose opinions are known, locally at
least, to be either purchased by patronage,
or loans of money. or as the reflections of
the opinions of Others who occasional ~ do
some thinking.
We do not believe that. there is single
man or woman of responsibility in the
community who shares Mr.. Anderson's
opinion. Mr.. Anderson can not point to
single instance when this paper was ever
swerved to the right nor to the left by
patronage nor the loan of money. We
may be pardoned for citing a single in
ctance which may suffice for the general
course of the paper The only men from
whom we ever borrowed mokey were bitter
ly opposed to the Burford redemption BILL
and we're not slow to let us know with
what alarm they looked upon that
measure, but their opinions weighed not
feathers weight with the course of the
paper.
In the matter ofspatronage and loans
Of money we hope that Mr.. Anderson will
always keep his skirts as clean as We have
kept ours, ami if he does, he can always re
pose with a good conscience; never be
thrown into clammy sweats nor forced TO
practice law in the night instead of the day
ffme.