The Progress., 1894-12-22
AN OPEN LETTER.

Editor G. D. Hicks, OF the Shreve
port PRoaREss-Dear Sir: In you
article of December 8, 1894, of THl
PRoaREss, under The head Of rs it 4
Regular Deadfai!" yon do me ,
great injustice; whether Intentional,
or not, you are dtubtlsss the best
judge, although from the circum
stances, and the tenor OF the article
it would app ,rently seem that you
jumped at conclusions without first
golug e. the small trouble OF making
My Investigations OF the matter in
question, aud from rep ,rts' and
hearony. dsnounos me, and make the
atlir'ustively answered question Of
my place of business, rs it Regu.
lar Desdfalll'
Now, "r. Editor, you say, aud
truly, that You have known me from
hoyhood, and could not believe that /
would knowingly allow my place to
be made q resort for thieves and
fskirs to ply their nefarious trade,
bnt yon have heard enough lately to
shake your faith in me. Would it,
therefore, not have besn a .faire& and
10 FAY the least, a more Christisn-lke
act, from one who is church ,nem-
Der, and who from boyhood days has
evidently, from your own la"gnsxe,
believed me a true and honest mal,
to have asked an explanation from ME
Of the partisan "reports' Of a posi-
bly, superzealous official, before max
ing such Al unjust attack upon me
through the public print' Sdfely
you, AZ an officer OF The law, know
that snypsrson accused Of crime OF
any violation Of the law, is held TO BIZ
innocent until proven guilty, and is
at least allowed to introduce testi-
moDy in his own behalf before, the
verdict is rendered. Surely you, as
o Justice Of the peace, know the
proper legal means Of procedure
when anyone il accused OF 81 ID out
rngeous conduct rs yon, ed'torially
accuse me, l,y inuendo at least, OF
beiGg guilty of
Their repeat, why not have first
asked III explanation from me a.
editor, or a, q law officer have hxd
charges made against me before pnb
fishing the "reports" Of Chief Rogers
and 'other reliable sourcesi" IA l
stated in an article Of 9tb, I was n
rested, charged before Mayor Vim
sous court with keeping disorder'y
house, and was honor bly, acquitted.
Oue OF my employees, DR.. Selser, was
also arrested and arrsiRsed before The
same court, charged with being dis
orderly and disturbing the peace. aud
not as you stated. discharged, but
WAS fouud guilty and fued by the
mayor.
Now, Editor Hicks, | am not in
clined to believs You would iutsn-
tionaily do anyone al. injustice,
though l trust that in future You
would do anyone the justice to pre-.
viously hear their 'sids Of the story
before ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the ta'l
of any Wild buh Of Bsshan's ire
ports'and go Dadly csreeriDg through
space in publishing "hey say" artl-
cles. As editor yon have vary Kindly
offered me the privilege Of your
columns in making any explanati ns
l might wish in my defense, aud for
this coasssay from boyhood friend,
I thapk y"a, even though the oifsr
followed the accusation which
might not have been made hsd an
investigation preceded il.
Now - regards the taking in
changing the 80 bill il concerned
the circumstances are simply as fol.
lows, A party came 10 my sslooa
asking change for the bill. He stated
thst he had Just tried to procure i
from my neightof, Mr. Kelly, who
tQId him he did not hass the chsass