Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1905-10-26
REPLIES TO Mr.. RAULSTON.
Editors News:

Editors News:
Replying to Friend Raulston's letter
as published in your issue of October
10, 1905, will first say, that when Won
Friend Raulston) learn to confine
yourself to the question at issue, then,
land not till then) will l confine my
self to the same. In your first letter
your repeatedly make reference to the
Englishman feature, together with
your six 'Do You Knows, and
"Narrowmindedness' etc, have an
swered land will answer) your letters
in any other matter apart from the
question at issue, as long as you in
troduce them. Referring to anything
l have said apart from the question at
ISSUE, said, lin the issue of Oct. 12)
l would not mention these things were
it not for Mr.. Raulston's s six "Do You
Knows. My meeting you (Friend
Raulston) at press, arises from your
statement in issue of Oct. s, '05, when
you used language as follows: (He pub
licly prefers charge againt three sworn
officers whose acts should be an open
book. If we are guilty of these charg-
es, as understand they were made
by Vasey, we should apologize to the
public for being scoundrels, beg our
own pardon for being fools, resign our
places of trust and hereafter confne
our scope of fiendish doings to matters
where the rights of helpless children
are not involved. II Mr.. Vasey's
charges las reported) are false, he
should be arraigned in the courts for
SANDER, he should ask pardon of the
people whom he represented, for when
attempting to speak in their behalf,
being 80 untrue to them and so foolish
to himself as to make such SANDER
GUS assault as he is said to have made
ON people who are looking after their
own affairs officially, taking no con-
Germ in his and their affairs and at
once vacate the important place now
filed by him. 1t is no small matter to
charge public officers who are sworn to
faithfully and impartially discharge
their duties with such deception and
treachery as Mr.. Vasey charges us
with. If these charges prove to be
false, it can be no excuse for Mr.. Vasey
to say he was misinformed), together
with your reference to the Englishman
feature, "Six Do You Knows, "Nar-
! row mindedness, etc.
There were present at the meeting,
(which was public, for union, non
: union, or any and all who desired to
attend) that this controversy arises
from, not only two of my informers,
but also a member of the Whitwell
School Board, Viz: Orchard Rigby)
: of whom readily agree with Friend
/ Raulston of him (Richard) being pure
i gold. Neither of my informers pres
q ent, not Richard (the member of the
! School Board) disputed the statements
. nor in any way interferred with what
4 was said, with the exception of what
d admitted in issue of Oct. 12, 05, per
a tanning to Richards interference
J. viz: (his asking to defer the passing o.
a motion pertaining to the matter.
Now, If 1 publicly preferred charges
= against three sworn officers, and one o.
. said officers was present at said meet
ing, and heard all that was said, is il
J not fair to conclude that said Officer
present would have resenteds Th'
fact is, l was in company with sait
officer prior to opening of meeting
part of the time during the meeting
and short while after the meeting
Said officer met with the two othe
members of the Board shortly after ad
iournment of meeting and what ha'
passed at said meeting was not ono
referred to by said officer, and nothing
was said by him at meeting, excep
what has already been admitted. VIII
did not you, Friend Rualston, permi
Richard, per his own request, who wa
present at the meeting and was famil
lar with all that was said, write to tn
News, with view to adjusting mis-
understandings, if there was any. No
Friend Raulston, you were eager to g
to press. Hence, l am not meetin
your desire to transfer this affair froI
you and myself to the News and my
self. Neither am l complying wit
your demand, to hand over (per you
orders) anything l have under signs
ture. You will have to furnish you
own ammunition. You say l ought to
arraigned before the courts. If an IL
Justice has been done You you have n
dress there still don't object.
can't help and am not responsible fC
constructions and conclusions you ma
make and reach on what appears undt
my signature but don't fear going b'
fore any court of equity that may d'
mand proof and definitions of same
| win say for the entire satisfaction
Miss Willie and yourself, l have see
and read the letter you speak of signe
Willie Carlyon, and also the letter
Prof. H. E. Tate, in the issue OF i
10 'O5, and while in Whitwel, Satu
day, Oct. 81. 'O5, complied with yoI
request, viz: to call and see you. A
ter personally meeting yourself and &C
league at your own Office and havir
about twenty minutes pleasant Co