Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1896-08-11
FIVE LEGAL LIGHTS.
BISHOPS LOCAL ATTORNEYS WRITE
A CARD.



tinguished members of the Legal
fraternity--Messrs. G. II. Bush, w. R.
Howell. Hunter Wood, W. NJ. Reed
and T. j. Morrow. These gentleman
undertook to criticise the action of
Messrs. Chas. M. Meacham and W.
A. Wilgus for using their votes as
Yeaman delegates in az attempt TO
force the Withdrawal of Judge Bish
op. Two of them, Messrs, Bush and
HCwell-were parties to the written
agreement under which the vote of
the county was divided. Messr. sWood
and Reed signed it as witnesses and
Judge Morrow assisted in getting the
parties together but left before the
agreement was signed.
The gentlemen in their card admit
all of the facts claimed in the agree
ment and seem to have rushed into
print to salt each others wounds.
Deny as they may, the fact re-
mains that Messrs. Meacham and
Wilgus acted under an agreement
they were urged to go into by the
Bishop men, and they violated no
part of that agreement or in any
other manner failed to act in entire
good faith.
When Mr.. Meacham was conduct
ed to the place of meeting by Judge
Morrow, he found five Bishop men
present, and thinking there too many
spiders for one poor fly he made
some jocular remarks expressing
doubt of his ability to cope with five
Bishop men, all lawyers and political
experts. While the gentlemen were
explaining their proposition Mr.. Will
gus arrived and it was submitted to
him. Mr.. Wilgus promptly declined
to accept it, but all Of the gentlemen
except Judge Morrow urged, and
finally Mr.. Wilgus expressed himself
in favor of the proposition and after
a further conference it was reluctant
ly agreed to by Mr.. Meacham, with
the understanding that every detail
should be reduced to writing. This
was done and the statement that MIR
Wilgus or Mr.. Meacham agreed to
any matters not in the written agree
ment is not true. The agreement
was rewritten two or three times to
make it cover every point and the
Bishop men themselves did the writ
ing, with All occasional suggestion
from the Yeaman men. There were
no promises made that were not re-
duced to writing, the statement to
the contrary Notwithstanding. 1t
was impossible to tell how the county
wonld 60 at that time and neither side
was in a position to take advantage
of the other in drawing up the agree
ment, consequently both sides insist
ed that all points be covered fully.
The claim now made that the Yea
man men entered into a written
agreement to let each side act "inde-
pendent of the other" and at the
same conference bound themselves
by verbal agreement to vote for Bish-
op as second choice, is so plainly
contrary to reason and in conflict with
common sense that it is reflection
upon the intelligence of the Yeaman
men to even notice it seriously.
This point is the only one the gen
tlemen seemed to have attached much
Importance to in their card and since
it is not founded on facts, there is
really not much occasion for replying
to this. We have previouly given a
truthful statement of the facts in the
case and appeal to the written record
to settle whatever question of veraci-
ty that may have been raised by these
learned lawyers, who would have the
public believe they could not jointly
write a contract to convey the ideas
contained in their own proposition.
As to the moral lecture the gentle
men attempted to deliver, we will
only say we have clear consciences on
that score. If Mr.. Meacham or Mr..
Wilgus had ever betrayed" anybody,
or failed to act in good faith" or as
honorable" men during the twenty
years they have lived in this commu-
nifty, they have failed to have their
attention called to it. If those who
now claim to have been "duped" by
their own transaction, have been
equally fortunate we are willing to
give courteous hearing to their dis
sertation on morals and questions
of honor, otherwise it would be bet
ter perhaps to drop that branch of
the subject.
Messrs. Meacham and Wilgus
made no agreement, written or YER
bal, to vote otherwise than "inde-
pendent" of the Bishop side. The
agreement is in the custody of one
Of the gentlemen who signed the
card. Why was it not published7
1t speaks for itself. 1t is the only
agreement made and covers tie
whole case. Under it the Yeaman
delegates could not have been loyal
if they had voted otherwise than as
bis interests demanded. His only