Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1897-09-21

SENATORIAL.
Chapter VIII.)

Week before last c. n. Goddard un-
loaded some of his political venom and
Jealousy against DR.. Daubney in So
called letter through the Republican.
Among other false claims made by him
was the one that DR.. Daubney Isl bolt
er, and his possible excuse for such a
claim is the fact connected with the
DecOrah city elections, in 1895 and 1897
when the people of Decorah by decisive
majorities rejected this self-praised man
and said they did not want him for
mayor. Mr. Goddard says in sub
stance that DR.. Daubney is bad man,
and is undeserving. But let us take
the estimate of the local Decorah city
people, who know both DR.. Daubney
and Mr.. Goddard:
For mayor, 1895,
Daubney-375.
Goddard-297.
For mayor, 1897,
Daubney-434.
Goddard-299.
These voters know these men person
ally, and tested by this result, if DIR.
Daubney is so bad man, how very,
very much worse Mr.. Goddard must
be!
Then, it is downright, deliberate
falsehood that DR.. Daubney is bOlter.
With many other respectable citizens
he repudiated in 1895 the mechanical
nomination of Mr.. Goddard for mayor
by "citizen's," mot republican,
convention, and the voters Of Decorah
at the polls approved his action.
Judge Willett, with considerable
air of salve "a little for Mr.. Bailey and
a little for himself) protests that he is
not endeavoring to try his alleged case
of Daubney VS. Daubney in Bailey's
paper, but the fair minded public has
not failed to observe that every step
taken by Willett in the matter has
been done with reference to Bailey's
convenience. How conveniently Mr.,
Willett told Mr.. Bailey just enough of
Mrs. Charlotte Daubney's business to
enable him to publish the scurrilous at
tack upon DR.. d. on the morning of
the republican county convention.
Mr.. Bailey promised a summary exam
ination of DR.. Daubney and Willett
pretended to furnish it. Willett issued
notice in the equity case, and it is
known to have been on Bailey's desk
before it was served, which proves
beyond question collusion between Mr..
Bailey and the attorneys for plaintiff.
1t will also be noticed that Judge Will
lett in his article craftily omitted to
deny that the notice was in Mr..
Bailey's hands before it was served
Further, the petition in the case, an
unusually long one, and appearing to
have been copied or phrased from re-
cent numbers of Mr. Bailey's paper,
was filed in the afternoon of Septem-
ber Is, and appeared at length in the
Republican the morning of the 10th.
In other words it was filed just in time
for Bailey's publication day. Mr..
Bailey did not get the petition or a
copy of it at the clerks office. There
is but one way that he could have pro-
cured it, and that is from Willett &
Willett, attorneys for plaintiff.
We have asserted rom the beginning
that these charges against DR.. ID. were
made for political purposes. If this is
not true, why should Mr.. b. devote
three columns of the first page of his
paper in publishing in full the plain
tiff's petition in court, something which
we have never before heard of? And
why should the attorneys for plaintiff
so graciously assist him in furnishing
the material, as Mr.. Bailey claimed
would be forthcoming from the start?
TO be continued.)