davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-01
BUY wheat on
MATERIAL BREAKS.

There will be plenty BULL NEWS forthcom-
ing before delivery of May wheat, and you
can make many PROFITABLE TURNS before
that time.
The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-01
GENERAL PRODUCE
The minneapolis Market

Extra creamery butter, higher; ex-
!: ira dairy, higher. Strictly fresh eggs,
!: firm. Dressed hens, nrm; spr.ng
!: chickens, firm; fancy turkeys,
!: firm. Potatoes, higher. Apples,
firm. Fancy country dressed veal,
:: steady. New oranges, steady.
The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-01

South Omaha, Feb. -Cattle-Receipts, 100:
unchanged.
Hogs-Recepts, $500; sc lower; heavy, 1910
@6.30;, mixed, $5.90@6. %; pigs. $4.50@5 So
Sheep-Receipts, 1900; steady; sheep, 81 so
as. 10; lambs, 81. 50@5. 50.
The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-01
Puts and Calls.

1870 o'clock report:
Puts-May wheat, 74c.
Calls-May wheat, 74Ac.
Curb-May wheat, 74A4741kc.
The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-02-01
Lead.
South Omaha Live stock.

st. Louis, Feb. 1.--Lead-Firmer 81. Spe
and weak, 81.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
Third Court Of Apneala.

Austin, Texas, November 26-The following
proceedings we're had in the court of civil ap-
peals. Third district, today
Affirmed State OF Texas VS.. 7. T. Fillmore
from Travis City Of Austin vs. Jules f Vale
City OF Austin vs.. James c, Cahill City of Austin
vs.. William B. Papin, City of Austin VS. Ellen l.
Mckee, from Travis county.
Reversed and dismissed T. B Harold VS.
State OF Texas, from Robertson county
Reversed and remanded Julius Toblcr VS. +.
H. Austin ct al from Bell county Texas Home
Mutual Fire Insurance Company VS. J. S Bow
lin, from Robertson county John Dillingham; ct
al vs. j. W. Smith, from Coryel county.
Submitted for rehearing Florence Mcknight
e al vs., N NJ. Reed ct al from Bell county
w. H. Dennis ct al VS. Robert Neal ct al from,
Hell county (also motion for certiorari) Western
Union Telegraph Company VS. w L. Pierce, from
rails county; Martin County VS.. Gillespie County
from Travis county (also motion to certify 10 siI
preme courD W. J. Lee VS.. British and Ameri-
can Mortgage Company, from Brown county: /
A. Mabry VS. Gulf. Colorado and Santa Fe Rail
way Company ct al, from Bell county; ST Paul
tire and Marine Insurance Company VS. H. +
Hodge. from Lee county.
Rehearing refused Continental Fire Associa-
ton VS.. S. ?. Cockrell, from Robertson county f.
Oscar Thompson VS. NJ. {. Dutton from, McCnI,
loeh county; Francisco Maldonado VS. { u
Arthur ct al from Tom Green county: Austin
Ice and Botting Company VS.. D. A. CIPHER, from
Travis county.
Oyerruled Julius Tobler vs. F. II. Austin .,
al from Bell county to strike out statement Of
facts. Va
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
Court Of Criminal Annual.

Tyler Texas November 26.-B.lov J.
proceedings Of the court Of criminal ,,,.,.
Appeal dismissed Dan rramer 4. .
manche county.
Affirmed Myor Estop. from el,v H.
Nancy Martin, from Fannin county, NJ, sg'ii}l
son, from Ellis county; Ben Fay I H.. \
county Eugene Scott, from Paris Dsr p..s
from Galveston county.
Reversed and remanded: Briseo, Fad.
death, from Rusk county, Ia Tad 49, \.
Madison county ]. S Atkins. from c,g u. (
Oliver Bridgers and Sadie Wallace I'M Y
county Nathan Hughes. from Con-, 49,. (
Jesse Alexander. from Harris COUNT r.
Submitted-on motion for rehestip, I,
Jackson, from Bexar county. On brief, h, \
pellant Joseph Webb. from Icaer,on ~
On briefs for both parties Joshua prcs M,
from Brazos county John Ransom (dessl \.
Williamson. On briefs Tor State T "a
son 1.-TWO cases, from Smith county A. |. h.
from Lavaca county On briefs and orsl NJ
ments for both parties Charles II. 0dsH NJ
Bosquc county A. +. Knowles from Boscu N
ty; J. w. Carter, from Hamilton ceubF \
parte, w H. Stone, from Bexsr count.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
The Wanaoner Land Case.

Austin. Texas, November Ca case Of great
interest and Importance TO the people of Texas.
and which will bring out some new principles
OF land titles will come up in the supreme court
Of the United States in Washington, at it's
next meeting
The style Of the case is w, r, Wageonor VS..
NJ. Flock The history OF the case is this ::
Naggoncr sued Flock IN the district court OF
Wlbargcr county for the recovery OF a section
OF land IN Wilharger county This section had
been taken UP hy one Phillips in 1895, but he
failed 10 keep hi, interest payments made and
the land forfeited under the act of 1902.
The land was then awarded SO Flock Naggoner
who had meantime acquired the claim OF Phillips
TO The land, brought suit against Flock, his con
tenticn being that the law which provided for
forfeiture without a judicial ascertainment Of
the facts on which it was based was in violation
of the provisions of the constitution of the United
law that npairs the obligation OF a contract This
contention was not sustained in the State courts.
and Ilocks title was upheld
he case was taken 10 the supreme court Of the
United states, where It submitted, and this
court set aside the submission and il was an
parent that decision overruling the decision
OF The Texas courts would effect many titles to
land In this State, the United States supreme
court ordered that the attorney general he given
an opportunity to hle brief and make an argti-
ment in support of the decision of the Texas
courts.
This brief has been filed by Attorney General
Bell who will leave Austin for Washington in
few days for the purpose Of submitting an oral
argument in the case.
II will be readily understood and easily seen
turned if the decision of the supreme court OF
the United States, in what is known as Office
forfeiture of school lands, for nonpayment OF
interest, should be held to be illegal
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
THE OPERATORS BACK DOWN.

Mr.. Wayne MacVeagh leading counsel for
the coal operators, must feel like withdraw.
ing from the case, and the commissioners
who were asked to grant recess on a pro.
posal Of settlement out of court must be
especially provoked.
After the leading spirits of the operators
constituting the trust, that is. those com
panies combining coal mining with railroad.
ing, had expressly approved the peace sug-
gestions made by Mr.. Macveagh and the
conferees had assembled at Washington
by appointment. the independent operators
interposed and persuaded the railroad COM
panies to withdraw from the tentative agree
ment.
SO the whole case goes back to the com.
mission for a more or less protracted in.
yestigatlon.
The conduct OF the operators destroys the
good opinion of the public which the over.
ture had inspired They are still intolerant
and lnsolent. They recognize no rights but
their own and are bent upon destroying the
miners union.
II Ia strange that they should &c vslsintsr'
pref the testimony 30 far submitted "a the
eummissiea, They seem 10 think It justices
r.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
Fourth court Of ApneaI.,

San Antonio, Texas, November as.-fas
lowing proceedings we're held in the FoHa I.
OF civil appeals today
Cases affirmed: George A. Wharton eas
J. X. Arrendole, from Bexar county; EdFaaa
from VS. City Of San Antonio, from Bexr y
ty; international and Great Northern hq
Company VS.. Lee D. Hoyt, from Bexar tosa
Cases reversed and rendered E. A. III
Nease ct al VS.. G. Graham Watts, from ID
county,
Gases reversed and remanded Anns n
~, executrix, ct al vs.. Pierre Gfsd.it \
Bexar county w. Z. Luter VS.. E J. DyaA
from Bexar county.
Motions overruled Charles A. Greys
Mckenzie, from Bexar county, iot rshs,a
ST Louis Expanded Metal Fire PROBING
pany vs., Frank r, Dawson, from Btxsf "a
for rehearing; Galveston, Harrisburg ~. 4
Antonio Railway Company VS., Antonio ) ia
from Bexar county for rehearingi WsH
ion Telegraph Company VS. John g psfg. u
Bcxar county, for rchearingi l. n han
Hattie A Martin ct al from Bsxar c'rrs
rehearing
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27

their position, when in the view of all UNI
prejudiced persons who have followed the
case the cause Of the miners has been great
ly strengthened. Indeed, so strong was the
case made out by Mr.. Mitchell and other
witnesses for the miners that when the
overture came for private settlement there
was reason TO suspect that the operators had
taken fright and concluded to make liberal
concessions in order to prevent further reve-
lations. Now 1t must be assumed that they
have testimony which they think will upset
Mr.. Mitchell or that they are so blinded by
prejudice and self-interest that they can
not see the case in its true light.
In any view their retreat from the Mac.
veagh proposal is an act Of bad faith. 1t
is almost as bad as If they should withdraw
from the. commission investigation and re-
fuse in advance to be bound by its findings
Indeed, such radical action later would not
be surprising, for the operators have re
peatedly exhibited a state Of mind utterly
intolerant toward the labor union and the
views Of any other persons outside their
own close community of interests.
After all 1t is perhaps well that the in
vestigaton is to proceed and completely
uncover all the facts in this momentoui
struggle. 1t is bound to throw light on q
yexatious problem which will never be final
" settled until it is settled right
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
DECISIONS OF HIGHER COURTS
THE COURTS OF APPEAL, CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL, RENDERED OPINIONS,
New suit viii Have to be Brought In the
Case Of Harold VS.. state--Travis
County Tax Levy Too High.

Austin, Tixes, November a6.-In the court OF
civil appeals for tho the Third district Associate
Justice Key handed down an interesting opinion
IN the case of 5. B. Harold the State Of
Texas. appealed from the county court Of Robert
son county.
This suit was brought by the State, acting by
the copnty attorney OF Robertson county and
in the county court of that county, to recover
$j4z.S4, alleged 10 be due as taxes by l.. f..
Harold, the defendant upon personal property
belonging to him and situated in Robertson coun-
ty No lien was asserted, the suit being purely
personal action for debt.
The defendant filed a plea in abatement, stat
ing that al the time the suit was filed, and con-
tinuously thereafter he resided and had his DOM,
Gle in the county Of Iarraut in this State said
plea also aegatved all the provisions OF article
1894 Of the Revised Statutes, which authorize
defendant to he sued in a county other than
that Of his domicile,
The court below heard evidence, and found
that the facts set up in the plea were true, but
ovcrruled the plea because under the oonstu,
ton and laws Of Texas all taxes arc due and
payable in the county TO which said taxes are
payable
This ruling is assigned as error, and the as
senmeut must he sustained While the appellant
may have owed the taxes sought to be recovered,
and while IL is true that the constitution and
statute makes taxes payable in the county where
the property is situated still. as the appellant had
not contracted in writing to pay the taxes ID
Robertson county, and as the case does not come
within any of the other exceptions to article
Irc4. requiring a defendant to be sued in the
county of his domicile the venue was improper
ly laid and the court should have sustained the
plea Of privilege
A provision OF law, even though embodied in
the constitution, making a particular class OF
debts payable in particular county is Of no
greater ssnctity binding force than verbal
contract promising 10 pay debt in such county.
And it has been decided, and properly so, that
such a contract, while enforciblc in tho proper
form, docs not authorize suit against the de
PENDANT in the county where such contract stipu-
lated for performance. (Mahon VS.. Cotton,
supra0
As this ruling will require dismissal OF tho
plaintiffs suit, and as another suit brought in
the proper county, will be appcalabe to a diff
terent appellate court, VIC make no ruling on the
other questions presented in appellants brief.
The judgment of the court below is reversed,
and judgment here rendered sustaining the APP
peants plea in abatement and dismissing ap.
pelees suit
Reversed and appellecs suit dismissed.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
Tax Levy Too High.

Austin, Texas. November 26--In the court Of
civil appeals the Of the State of Texas against
4 Fillmore from Travis county. was af-
irial court but appealed the case as the trial
eouss held that the tax levy Of Travis count,
Tor road and bridge purposes was excessive. The
plaintiff recovered Judgment in the trial court
against Z. I. Fumore Tor Ssa taxes Win III
costs. The Judgment OF the lower court was 10
The effect that the tax levy OF Travis coi,ntv az
goo Tor read and bridge fund is excessive 10
ne extern OF cents on 90 worth al Dronerts
= was ordered BY the curt that the plsintiT
take nothing % such Excess The Govt ~
c'yn appeals todg,' IN affirming the case agreed
Nilp tNe over cfurt that the tax was excessive
nc court SAYS We agree with the trial corr
fhN 50 much Of lhs levy and assessmer. To-
foad ato hr9se pur11ses was excessive "a H.
Sfieni found ~ ba iadEment. The rons,ttv,ia,
ave net Apiher'xe an assessment ara lew ~
sSSss Ter reae and bridge purposes greater thar
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
First Court Of Anr..,.

Galveston, Texas, Novemb.r rS''s'
civil appeals, First district, bara.a ne tor
today instead of tomorrow ~ u0Fn opirs..
TACT that tomorrow is Thanksoi,; accent II ;
ing orders were entered Tie m
Affirmed: {. II. Rice vs.. ps..,
Smith county; w. B. Turner , =. JOHNSON 4.
Cochran ct al, from Harris q vs. A,s
Manufacturing Company vs. "a.
Shelby county; A. Wetternari hlaf r.
NJ. Burton, from Nacogdocbee oon " Co.
Reversed and remanded G asSc
son vs. u. ~ Cooley, from Harris eoa' y .; M
Crook ct al vs.. J. c. Lipscomb :, :, NY; W 3
Ter county II. {. Turner VS.. Iobr ION IA
Washington county; Willis is am A'l,;, ss
Joshua Crow ct al from Rusk co,, e d 1
tilrmed in part and reversed sslY
part, the reversal being as n ne NY l,sudtIa
Life insurance Company vs. peAssiW "a
from Smith county (two casesl = esFss tt'
In the case of T. S. Garrison 20 !,
from Pamela county, the order 49,. 49,. y III
vember 20, 1909, certifying disssr,N " q VI
court. was set aside and iudpmert ! y Nls
below affirmed, Justice Pieasan,s i, y lns III
Motions for rehearing refused Ts'snaq
vs. State of Texas, cx rel I t ulI M
Jefferson county Conrad Letzeriess ' = a
Lidak, from Fayette county. TEL
Motions to certify dissent "a ..,..
granted B. ?. Dority ct al " H .n' trl
from Nueces county; Home Mrt, .ii'e 4. VreI
Company We. Tomltes & Co. from I.,.sa'zrl
Remotion for conclusions Of isu, ,'s s.I s'al
fused {. B. Holliheld VS.. ]. P. ,r sM q
from Jefferson county.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
The surname oouri.

Austin, Texas November s6--lht i'R9
proceedings were had in the supreme @n
day -
Applications granted: James H. Slyn'.s
VS.. a. y. Warrington ct al, from Ians NJ
J. s. Brown Hardware Company vs.. lno'A' 4
Works. from Galveston county ...
Applications refused (. B. featnsuS'sI
]. L, Keen from Stonewall county = y. "
VS.. ]. NJ. Lybrand, from Van ls1 r... VA
Houston and Texas Central Railroad eplsI-
L. Brown, from Travis county l.st
ct al VS., F, T. Garvin, from Fark,f , SUI M
Robertson VS.. Frank X. Sterrett iIon MI
ford county St Louis Southwestern VI
Company Of Texas VS.. J, W. Bysfs lias
county Hubbard City Gin and d. so sal.
pany VS.. w. A. Collier, from HI ICY, eeass; 1,
Motion for rehearing submitted IVA
Jr., Administrator, VS.. /. :. DAWSON
Tom Green county.
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
CAPTAIN BEN GARDNER DEAD
Was a Celebrated Wing Editor ana 'ss1
Before the War

Palestine. Texas, November a4--s'
Gardner. company I. Fifteenti. Alsu1 w, n
Confederate States army, died nsIs M N 81
age of SO years, at the Residence .ssl "a
s. Gardner. ESQ. From 1883 I'D
Gardner published and edited Paps, IA lsi'
Ga, Columbus Ga, Eufaula, Aiaii ,ss "
ery. Ala, IN the order named " rsi,s
elected as Justice of the peaee, ~ ~ u
I'm $50 he was elected as a wing ~ 81
county. Ala. to the house Of lsp IA 10
that State. In 1881 he was appolss.ss,s ~
AZ Fufa,la Ala, and in June ,,ssl
delegate 10 the wing Nationa' y Mn
Baltimore. In 1853 and 1858 ~ touru,L I.
associate editor in the Alabama IA ID
ing wing paper in Montgeonilei, S1,eresi II . J,
tain Gardner disposed OF ms in''Al a. ~
ma Journal and located IN lIoy .r ,ryhp "
in the practice of law. ID pena.i;sued 70 2
Henry W. billiard. VINO CON-. 4 ora
Montgomery. Captain GaIu"'
into a good practice. - Trw "
In 1850 the Young men I'D bsi
ganized military company .sn,psnI g
was elected its captain. ! NJ A. b.esas
Quitman Guards. but s.,.ssimsnt
/, OF the Fifteenth Alabama ssseession 2, 4
Captain Gardner Opposed .srt;on q y
an active canvass OF ms yo,ed 70 =
aeainst il. but when Alabama vs. csg
entered the Confederate army ,wd -
company. Captain 0ardnei NJ Nls
Confederate army, and loslns ,,non By.
inc a large family dependent v wsnl %
beine advanced in years g n ptss
and rendered his Iesigna.l;;Ssa,tioa -
Secretary OF war His resigns, md ~
and he returned 10 Alaoahe
practice of his profession. ,,,s essir
In 1872 Captain Gardner NJ ofHU
publieans OF Alabama 70 US 1T ~
General OF that State. lie VIZ X aciigi
Re- election. and has not h9 Sl, mar, mar, "
since going out Of Office; f.iod. y,i
Gardner has been totally pl.'g ~ so
ever cheerful and has kep. meas
Of the day, and had never 'os'
'T For manv years he has i tssD ss5
SONS b nj. and r. s. Gafsa rs
fr;erds Who tried 10 masss dm
burdensome. Captain 1sio "a scf
Rood he HAS been an earhes, rhafs
her III ne Methodist kpise0P'
Palestine. Texas, Hnresfrsf !.
AZ csptsin Ben Gardns' os.,.rhri 9
A. 70 o'clock. and laigs srd W
,he decsased were rfesenN W
services er We're held By Rev p
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
Thankful.

"What IN I thankful fer?" Less see
EVERYTHING | suess-that's me
Thankful at I'm here till yet,
An fer things | can't forget
Thankful? You jest bet | am
Thankful fer the days ats cam,
An fer stormy days as we'll
Sho | can't begin ter tell!
Thankful fer old mem'ries. too
Blue skies sorter shinin' thoo
All the years | ever knowed
Thankful at I've had my load,
Heavy load ter bear--I am
Thankful, an that amt no sham
r had knowed no trouble, then
Wouldn't knowed my fellow men
Sorrow brings folks heart ter heart.
An I'm glad I've had my part
P'r'aps they's silver in my hair
Fer the baby over there"
But tkoo all eternity
tn always be with me.
An I'm glad fer that yeh know.
Fer I do love babies so
An I've got baby here.
Likes Ter set long side my cheer.
IA there's MY Of woman. TOO,
An I'D like ter say ter Won.
She kin build punkiu pie
That I'D make an angel sieh
Ter an ~ al "a, the .uH
aiH't thankful ssif sauk
~ J. ", Lrgis
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
louston, 10. Thursday. November q, 19o2.
lie pgoPLE-rAEY ~.

-~ -
Jones nc pays inc lrelsnt, was .ei''ns
advertisements IN us oay' VI course " was
deceptive lot no manufacture OF merchant
really pays the freight which Is an Item
~ noe, oc,,ol Ia man, c.eos IN tho entire
- 80
profit Shifting it from the consgnce TO
tbe consirnor is merely taking an advance
payment ON the soous'
Tho old advertising phrase aptly expresses
,bo +rict nb,cb 10 nov. hoiry ,racticod bv
tuc "ioN WHICH - NO" u''nS paV'Veu Wy
the big railroad systems There has been
general advance in wages by the trunk lines,
ana II mas oe'n heraldod as a proper con
cesslon to empIoyes-as giving them share
in prosperity earnings
1t is worth recalling that for several weeks
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
gampering 10hk 9rifes
CBy J. NJ. LEwrs.)

ORDERS.
All we knew was It was orders and each o.
US packed his kit,
And we marched down TO Manila where the
coastwise transport lay.
Wed seen service in Mindoro an had mareheu
an swum an FIT
From Bulalakao north'ard clear to Varadero
bay.
But it isn't what you've done,
Nor the dangers you have run
It's the orders that they give you and the task
you're set to do;
It's the sounding reyellc
Ere the breaking OF the day;
It's the boarding Of the transport and going
south for you.
II you've been in Mindanao you have got a sort
Of know,
OF the way the transport followed down and
past Marinduque-
How we lodged the Cuyos islands and kept
lacking too and fro
Till our path lay straight before us down
across the Sulu sea.
ff you've got your orders south,
Needn't tighten UP your mouth
Needn't feel no hot rebellion IN your hwards
twist an burn.
You can't even say good bye
To Querida OH the Sly
Not farewell look an lovin' from them big
brown eyes o her'n.
As I said, we'd swept Miudoro side to side,
an up an down,
An Our regiment had batted in Negros and in
Cabu;
We had planted Irish Casey ia Samar and
burned the town,
An done battle with the chol'ry, but it seemed
We wasn't through!
For duck in Bscalod
Was a-neediu' OF prod
An had said in his own lingo what meant
Didn't give dam ~
That 10 Khaki colorcd troop
Couldn't put him in the soup.
An had shook bis dingy shirttail in the face Of
Uncle Sam
An will say this much for him-nakcd
shanked an brown an slim
An without decent weepon ncr a breastwork
worth cuss--
Tie was with us from the minute VIC unlimLcrcd
AM "a although - We sockcd it to i'm, still he
got few of us.
An we turned his spirit loose
But doqgone It, what's the use
We're nation big an betty with the latest
style o Krag
He was igrant an alone.
In a yard he thought his own
An doggone it, We was big enough ter let i'm
have his brag.
But he's pacided an planted while we're Shy
of Fittsburg Joe
An two others, Freckles Sanders an oui
favrito Sergeant Klein,
Who we're 6ggeriu' on Christmas, but their orders
come 10 60.
And there won't no Christmas boxes ever hnc
their way To them
The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-11-27
NOTE AND COMMENT.

The Caldwell News. Chronicle, in discussing the
Houston Chronicles contempt case, says of The
It charges the Chronicle with working the case
tor lTcc advertising (Which may nc true Tor that
& II, 'lo so[is ,u( l"'g' I ,ST a,u
Post and Atlanta CONSTITUTION and papers Of that
ilk down to the Quillville Quill and crossroads
ioHlo, WIN INC sur tnat ne Nnroniele mas pub
nancr sorcbc,ds yhosc nersonai snlecn agai,,et
The Post for purely personal reasons is per
ieetr well known by YOU ard known under such
una' {ou, agt Us u,l',y nvyInQ IN,
his but vo v.ill and IL written here rierci,
as a means of expressing a contempt which polite
ness viii not permit in other terms. Notwth,
S @an1,g an eF' , 'p S0 . paSo'G,
would seem to be very Nominating to admit that
nent mctronoilan papers OF the country have
IT IN tor be iost
so lar as the charge OF he Post that ING con-
ments come from newspaper soreheeds with
u IS the vcuest rot and !, an insult to Che repl,
table editor, who have always had q KIND wor,l
tor he lost and who have contributed conNu-
cTablr To HE success ot that paper but who
don't happen to take the same position on TINS
question
The Post had intended 10 say nothing moro OF
this case for tho present and wi not nuw OK
..r+ ,, .,--,., mi .t,,,,,ort The Pos, Ji5 ,,ot
".
ieier 10 ali the newspapers rs SoI'A,aos' pu'
the reference Its remark as 10 other news
pspers was that much of the criticism Of Judge
Ciilasnie had beep minimizing and Was based
rpor :, nisapprehers,op Of the facts of the
~. ,r,,. ~ l,. No,,s- cbro,;,lo Il, lie