Meade County news. [volume] (Meade, Kan.) 1900-1918, 1903-05-07


write each one of the interested
parties a personal letter, to say
that unless all of the residents of
the districts involved in the pro-
posed bill, can get together on
the proposition and recommend
and endorse it, l shall have to re-
fuse to introduce the bill. 1 do
not think it would be right or
just to force this matter on any,
one, when they have no means of
preventing it.
Assuring all of my desire to
legislate for the good of my whole
district, 1 beg to remain,
Very Respectfully,
RIB. CAMPBELL,
Rep. 124th District.
The following is an extract
from Campbell's Rejoinder, and
the only reference he makes to
the school district bill, which is
no explanation at all, to our crit
icism:
Nov in regard to the Justice
of passing the bill-which was
the EDITORS excuse for his attack
on me, though it was but an ex-
cuse, for as he states, he cares
nothing what ever about the mat
ter himself. Well, now do, and
1 went to some trouble to write
to several parties in regard to
this matter, hoping to get infor-
nation which would show methe
proper and just course to pursue.
Several good citizens of Meade
Co. and residents Of the interest
ed districts wrote tome unsolicit-
ed on my part, advising me to Sc
cure the passage of the bill. l
also have petition, numerouslv
signed, asking the same. It is
true, I received a protest and
a few, very few letter, asking
that the bill be not passed, and I
certainly gave these careful con-
sideration. But knowing that 1
could not satisfy all, and sincerely
believing in the justice of the bill,
II secured it's passage. I may
have been wrong, but until 1 am
convinced oft l shall defend my
action. l have all the correspond
ence in regard to this matter and
can show it if necessary. 1t is
also true that 1 wrote an "open
letter" to both papers saying
that had withdrawn the first
bill introduced and should take
no further action until the inter-
ested parties got together omit
but l have correspondence that
. will convince any fair minded per-
son thatnearly all those interested
did get together on the billwhich
passed: Thefrst billintroduced
disorganizing Dist. 3Sand attach
ing it to Dist, 1 was withdrawn
. by me, because discovered there
were more residents of the dis
trict opposed to it than fovoring
it; but this was not the case with
) the bill which passed as l can
easily prove.
The first of the above is Camp
bell on Feb. II, the last quotation
from his "rejoinder" was evident
: 1y his position when he had the
bill passed. Now reader, there
is avast difference in these two
positions taken by Campbell.
In his open letter he says he
t found "much opposition" to both
bills. In his rejoinder he says
received only few letters in op-
position to the bill. Which will
we believe? The factof the mat
. ter is that three-fourths of the
t residents of Dist No. SO, were op-
: posed at all times to having their
l district disorganized. They
l were when the bill was passed for
. they thought Campbell meant
t what he said in the open letter but
, they found that he did not.
! Note also in the open letter thai
he says he also found much opposi
ton to the substitution of No. a.
for No. 1. In his "Rejoinder" ar
ticle he says this was not true of No
"A. Now, again which are you go
! ing to believe. These two utter
ances of Campbell place him in sucl
a ridiculous position that they neet
no comment.
True all the residents of dis
4 trict "A would want all the terri
= tory added to their district tina
4 they'could get, but think of tn,
residents-of District No. SO, whc
n are deprived of school or compel
to send their children severa
miles farther to school.
, We take the position as we di,
;. before that you cannot depend oil
what Campbellsays and it is cor
clusively proven by his letter a
above.
II If Campbell has any CORES