Clarke courier. [volume] (Berryville, Va.) 1869-1997, 1901-03-06
(CoMMUN ICATED)

sue TO nud reference ulaue 10 myself
aud, while L have no wish To oe draw u
IutO the maelstOrm OF cuuIruNers,
which has beeu surglng IN the Coz
kIEk, y~t l DO not, Ia Justice TO INV
self aud my clients, tvri that l eau
allow MIR. Moore's statement to re
malu uucUutrad cited. As he has
taken the "UUOm cases from the tar
OF the court 10 the bar of public
OpIulOn, l will meet hun Oh bis own
ground. AT tue outset, however, /
Wish TO make II distinctly clear, that
IN nothing that shall say, do wish
TO antagUuIzr Mr.. Moore tor the 10
sitIou tor which he is "A candidate br.
tore the people; on the cuuti ary am
tor him, have been from the first.
and expect To be TO the eud, despite
any report, rumor or suggestion that
| am not. | am for him because |
believe him To be an upright, houora
ole gentleman and All able LAWYER, in
every respect we'll fitted TO be a mem
ter of the constitutional convention
Having declared 10 these columns
that be Is willing to leave these boom
cases where they are with the courts.
| for one have no fear that if elected
he would undertake 10 change the
status gro, and this. too, nutwith
standing the fact that he bottled the
track the next week in not pursuit of
" Y" la this dash across the conn
try he lets fly lance at me. If /
were of that meek and quiet dlSposi
lion which one would infer of me-
from his alleged autocratic demands
nf me and from my shrinking silence.
| would make haste 10 get away and
still say nothing Unfortunately ]
am not hnilt that way. s. shall
make bold to give my side Of the
case Now Mr.. Moore make the fol
lowing statement:
During the progress of this. Mr.. Con.
rad kownslar stated TO the Committee
that he understood representation had
ueen made, that the Norfolk x Western
tailrOad Company. and parties living ina
New York and Baltimore had taken
stock IN the Company, and he inquired
OF me n such "A representation had been
made Before answering / asked Mr.
NOwnslar 10 name the parties 10 whom
this representation WAS claimed 10 have
Oeen made, and by whom il had been
made / received no reply from him.
aud thereupOn denied that any such
statement had been made by me or bv
anyone who had authority TO speak for
the company. This denial on my part
vas emphatic, and was made in the hear
ing OF every stakeholder present
| am bewildered by this; absolute
~ nothing of kind took place.
never asked amy such question anu
MIR. Moore never gave any such reply.
tie Is entirely mistaken, aud has con
| founded this with some other occa
sion aud some other person.
proceed now TO show why Mr.
Moore is mistaken. But first. tor the
purpose of indicating how Inaccurate
Mr.. Moore Is in his statement, | call
attention to the fact that he SAYS thai
The Company entered upon its work
m October, 1891. At the end of the
list year, towit, Oct, 1892, the stock
holders were assembled in genera
meeting as the law directs" In fact.
the company WAS organized ia 1890
aud the stockholders meeting was
held october -, 1891. As authority
for this. see Mr. Moore's deposition.
page 230 of the printed record, Shlck-
IL, Reed q Mccormick vs.. B. l.. !.
Co. Now, having made the mistake
Jf All entire Year as TO the date of the
above statement, it will not be sur
prising that he should be mistaken
as To what Was said.
Again, this statement of Mr. Moore
quoted abOYe is most pertinent, ana
4 1t Is true, as he saws IL is, he de
clared in the stock holders meeting
long before these suits, that he hau
made no representation to any Oh,
that the n. q w. Ry. Co. aud par.
lies living in New York aud Balu
more had taken stock in the Compa
"y,' and that this was in the hearing
Of every stock holder present and was
asseuted TO 10y them Sub Si(entiO. it
would be the strongest kind of cor
rOboration of his deposition. In this
view is it not passing strange Mqt
there is not one rOrd fms IN his dep
)SitiOn? Not one, not the slighteS
reference to it even. Mr.. Moore l.
too good LAWYER to let slip this al
vantage, and if be had his counsel
who is ii distinguished past mas er H.
the art of suggesting to his witnes,
The answer he wants, would have had
It there. This acute witness aud this
astute counsel would have had thls
evidence in if they had been forced
TO throttle the commissioner TO writ,
1t down. Well, this important facl
existed and IL is not in the case
"CredH JudaeuS AppeUa!!" Nov.
what did take place in this stock
holders meeting of 1891, not 1892,
was as follows: After the meeting
had gone into Committee of :bc
Whole, asked Mr.. Moore who were
the holders of stock in the "Ameri