The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1893-10-27

ud0 maze any inquiry or tie persons
in Kinsley whom lie could easily ascer-
tain were corresponding with Mr..
Gault, lie would have learned that Mr..
Gault was living III Macksville and
fully intended " cume back and take
care Of his crop We know that Mr..
Watson is fair and honorable man
and do not believe that he would at
tempt to take advantage of Il poor man.
In this Case he has simply been mis-
led by the information furnished by
others. The sub-agent referred to in
our former article stated to US the
other day, that he had talk with MI.
McCrea before the corn cutting com.
menced aud that Mr.. McCrea stated
that he would write to Gault and have
him come up and attend to the crop, aud
that the sub-agent asked Mr.. McCrea
to furnish guarantee that the Ontract
would be fulfilled by Gault which Ar.
NC Crea refused to do. The sub-agent
knew that Gault's family were living
ut Macksyilie and that his son Was
working here for McCrea and it would
nave been AL easy matter to ascertain
what Mr.. Gault intended to do in re-
gard to the crop before anything Was
necessary to be done, and neither
Gault nor McCrea were under any obli-
CATION to furnish y guarantee. In re
gard to the proposition which MI. Wat
son says he made ~ Gauit, that ..if
he would pay for the cutting he could
take the three-fOurths OF the crop pro-
viding he would comply with the COLI
tract" we have to say that if any
such proposition was made, it was
after our article appeared. Or else We
were not fully informed of the facts by
AcCrea, for McCrea claimed lie could
get no explanation OF satisfaction out
OF the sub-agent, other than that
Gault had forfeited his contract, and
Oh the DAY our article WAS written,
McCrea informed us that live teams
had been hauling the corn away the
day before. Ever if the proposition
had been made to Gault Immediately
Oh his return We cannot SEE how that
could help the wrongful position taken
by the company. Watson had no
right to hire Gault's crop cut up and
then require him to pay for the cutting
or lose it all.
Ii the agents of the company were
acting i'll gOod faith in the matter, and
actually supposed Gault Was not COM
ing back; when lie did appear they
should have promptly acknowledged
the corn" and given Gault his rights
ILL the matter without evasion Oh dis
pute, which they did not do if our
information is correct. The county
candidate who acted as sub-agent in
tile matter, claims that lie had 10
interest whatever in the matter and
acted under orders Of Mr.. Waston az
agent. Our article distinctly stated
that the county Candidate was IL sub
agent of the company, and as to what
he WAS to get out of it our article sim
ply stated what Gault had learned
from the men who were cutting the
corn. 1t is entirely immaterial, how
ever, whether, he was to have share
Of the corn for his services or WAS paid
in some other way; tbe effect OH MIR.
Gault was the same either way.
Mir. Watson intimates that our arll-
Gle Was aimed at loan companies, and IL
candidate for county office, and that
it was principally politics that insti-
gated it. In this he ID mistaken. We
lave never made fight on loan COM
panies, aud we never make an
attack Oh a man simply because
lie happens to lie IA candidate. But
OH the other hand, If poor man y
property is taken away from HIN
without color Of right, and in such u
manner that it becomes matter OF
public knowledge and concern, a news
paper is not required to mainta utter
silence on the matter simply because
one Ut the parties TO the transaction
happens to be Il candidate for county
office. The dispute is between repub-
licans, and our information was fur
nislied by VIM. McCrea, a stalwart re-
publican. Our columns have been
equally open to all parties to give their
version Of the matter, SO that the pub
lie could judge between them, and We
have fairly performed our duty to the
public.
A FRAlD OF POPULlSTS.