Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-05-22
Mr.. eUERRY MAKES
TART REPLY TO HILL


To the Editor of The Journal:
While Mr. Warner Hill declines my
challenge to him for joint debate. and
thus refuses to meet me face to face be-
fore the people of Georgia to make his
untrue and absurd charges on the subject
of Iobbyism, I see that he continues to
badger me in his safe retreat. as appears
in his letter published in The Constitution
of yesterday, and beg leave now.
through your courtesy, to briefly reply to
that communication.
Mr.. Hill notes the fact that he had
made this charge before and 1 had not
answered it. The truth is that in his
former communication he most viciously
and falsely accused my friend and partner,
Mr. Hall. of this crime. and sought to
involve me in it indirectly; and Mr.. Hall
has since then most emphatically denied
and refuted the charge and insinuation as
to both of us.
1t must be obvious that this attack of
Mr.. Hill is not only personal, but that it
proceeds from personal animosity, though
the public may not be advised as to the
history out of which this animosity has
grown. At this particular time there were
some controversies between Mr.. Sparks
and Mr.. Hill, in which the latter must
have felt Inundated, and he seems now
to remember his grievances against Mr..
Hail and myself, although my connection
with the entire matter was absolutely
nominal
But let us look at this reiterated charge
of lobbyism against myself, and let us
look at the evidence quoted In Mr.. Hills
letter upon which the charge is based. 1t
consists of statements from a petition
filed by Gustin, Query & Hall for fees
Cnrxvipnz rendered. the f1aOrviq South
ern and w. B. Sparks as receiver thereof.
in relation to the closing of a public alley
in the city of Macon for the benefit Of the
company.
The particular portion Of the petition re-
lied on by Mr.. Hill is in the following
words:
Petitioners show that these properties
could not have been used for the purposes
mentioned without securing in some way
the right to close and appropriate said
alley; that they found great difficulty in
procuring the passage of said bill; that the
same was practically defeated several
times, but petitioners succeeded by per-
sisting in their efforts to explain the ne
cessity and show the justice of said bill;
your petitioners using no other services
in said matter except arguments and facts
intended to reach the reason of the legis-
lature."
Thereupon Mr.. Hill has this to say:
''It is true that by way of apology and
explanation he (Guerry) says in concur
sion that he used no services other than
appeals to reason and to bring about the
change Of mind in the general assembly,
and out Of the dust of defeat to snatch
the flower of victory, but the public viii
place it's own estimate upon the value Of
this exculpatory apology made in advance
of any suggestion that unseemly means
had been used to accomplish this end.
hax AZ 1cngf 1OnlreH
to him as being suspfciOusly reprehensi-
BILE; otherwise he had not deemed It neo-
essary to explain IN advance"
What a strange argument this rs for a
Christian gentleman to make! These
things which he cites are from a petition
addressed to the court and made a part
of the record thereof. In this question Of
fees hundreds of creditors were interested
and the conscience of the chancellor was
involved II any lobbyism had been resort
ed to, II Is plain law that the compensa-
ton for services so rendered could not
have been recovered, and the court in
awarding fees for such services would
have violated both law and decency.
In such case any creditor or any attor-
ney of a creditor interested could have
prevented a recovery Of these fees or any
part thereof. II my firm had been guilty
of lobbyism and had been seeking to re-
cover on account Of such services. the
firm4 certainly would have said nothing
upon that subject or raised by any sug-
gestion whatever any question upon that
subject The crime would have been Sc
creted instead of published; and yet we
saw fit in our petition to state what was
the truth, that in presenting and urging
this matter upon the general assembly we
did so within the clear limits OF our pro-
fessional privileges, not only TO show our
right of recovery, but to show that in go
ing before the legislature we had not done
as others were doing to some extent even
in those days.
Personally, did not act in this matter,
but Mr.. Hill and the public. as far as they
may see At. may hold me responsible for
my share or for all Of it.
Let me say right here and now, that
while 1 have been before the legislature
on several occasions 1 have never in a
single instance been guilty of a solitary
word or a single act Of lobbyisn, and that
any accusation or insinuation contrary
TO this assertion is a groundless fabrica-
ton; and / now challenge Mr.. Warner
Hill and the rest of mankind TO name
such a word or such an act on my part.
l do not wish to go any further than is
clearly justified in what 1 have to say
in reply to Mr.. HILL but as Mr.. Hill is a
lawyer as well as a man of some infor-
nation and intelligence, I know that he
knows that this charge of lobbyism
against me is utterly false. He is under
taking to mislead the people Of Georgia
upon this subject. In other words, In
stead of showing that my charges OF
lobbyism in which both money and liquor
are corruptly employed, are untrue, he is
seeking TO divert attention from these
charges by preferring charges of lobby
ism against me, when he knows that
these charges are false.
Now, what I have been describing as
lobbyism is such lobbyism as is in plain
violation of the law on that subject as
above indicated, which lobbyism neither
Mr.. Hill nor any other decent man in
Georgia who is at all informed. denies
to exist and to have existed for some
years.
When I first made this charge publicly
1 wrote the Atlanta Daily News on the
2sth day of August, last, and made this
explatation:
Let me say further on the subject Of
lobbyism. that do not mean to include
in this charge the many professional
gentlemen or other gentlemen who appear
openly before committees in behalf OF
themselves or others during the sessions
of the legislature, but do mean TO in