Blue-grass blade., 1892-02-20

dock, the senior editor of the X
c. to give me the name of the
writer, he declined to do so, say
ing that he did not knoW who it
was, which was, OF course, untrue.
Several issues.of the Leader ap-
peared before that paper, pub
lished any correction of the libel,
and it did not correct it until the
Georgetown Enterprise" printed
what had personally said to its
editor about suing the &c. for
libel.
1t is morally impossible that
the "Member at Paris" as the ar
ticle was signed, and the Kentuck-
ian Citizen and the Lexington
Leaden, did not know, when they
published it, that it was such lie
as was specially calculated to in
jure me in the editing ofmy paper,
from the fact that it is nearly all
editorial instead of an ordinary
newspaper, in which therefore my
success, much more than is Ordi-
nary, depended upon my mental
sanity and intellectual accumen.
Not only were these publications
specially calculated to damage me,
but they We're, and still are, cal
culated to damage my children the
eldest Just now getting old enough
to come into society. as nothing in
this country perhaps is SO damag-
ing TO any young persons, as the
impression that they may inherit
insanity.
l will give the argument agains'
my suing these parties, and the
argument for it, as dispassionately
as | can, and | want my friends TO
give me advice, (,oritten preferred)
as to whether or not | shall pros
ecute the libelling parties. No
letter in answer to this will be
published, if the writer requests
that it shall not be. Otherwise, |
may, or may not, publish them,
and | would prefer that the writers
of such letters should allow me to
publish them, or parts of them, to
show why i decline to sue, or de-
termine to sue these parties, as the
case may be.
While the Blade is not an incor-
porated institution, and nobody
but myself is liable for its debts,
it has nevertheless been assisted
financially by parties to whom [
am willing to pay, on stock certifi-
Gates which l have personally is
sued TO them, ten per cent per an
mum from the beginning, upon the
presentation of said certificates.
The arguments against my
bringing suit against these parties
are; that l never have sued any
body, and am somewhat opposed
to doing so, and that it would cost
me some money, and occupy some
time, and possibly divert my mind
from my editorial duties. If |
should gain the suits / would dis
like to use money for which l had
not given a valuable consideration,
while 1 could not afford to go to
the expense of a suit without
keeping what l might gain, and
that to allow the parties to retain
what l might gain by jugdment
against them would not deter
Others from similar libel.
The reverse of these is the argu
ment in favor of suing them.
1t would not be merely my per-
sonal matter should l sue these,
but l would be representing the
financial, moral and political in
terests, of all stock holders, and
the latter two interests of all per,
sons friendly to the Blade and to
Prohibition.
Any money that l might gain
would at once be invested in ad-
vancing the influence of the Blade
and of Prohibition.
l have legal advice that the case
is libel, aud all three of the parties
are financially responsible, and |
can identify the man who wrote
the libel.
l believe that two of the parties
the original writer and the Lex
ington Leader, have published the
article in malice to me and the
Prohibition cause, and that the
&c. has published it, so far as
Craddock is concerned simply as a
sensational thing that he thought
would make his paper sell, and for
which he was possibly paid extra
by the man who wrote it, while
Remington, the partner in the
firm of the K.-C. has allowed its
publication simply under the in
iiuence of CraddOck, or for the
money in it, or with the desire TO
injure me, he being a member of
the church some of whose members
| had adversely criticised.
! OF course at law we do not have
to inquire into their motives, but
morally and personally we should
palliate the otfense if there be any
reason to suppose the libel was in