Lawrence democrat. (Lawrenceburg, Tenn.) 1884-1925, 1905-05-26
PUBLICUS

While not wishing to inaugurate a
controversy that can scarcely be copsid-
cred profitable to the readers of the
Democrat, yet we feel that the retort
OF Mr.. Sweany, in Democrat of May
18th, replying to an article from our
pen published in the Democrat of April
l4th, is misleading to say the least.
To consider first the accusations
against Mr.. Patterson - he is no doubt
able to take up the cudgels in his own
defense, should he deem the case of sulli
cient importance, yet it is perhaps his
due that the reasons for his course con-
cerning the Bill to create the special |
school District of Ethridge, should be
explained by til. at whose request he
acted. Mr.. Sweany has sail that Mr..
Patterson asked the two citizens who !
carried the Bill to him, if there was any
opposition from the outside, and they
replied that there was not, that they
knew of. That there was such oppos-
ton is fact beyond question, AMI Mr.,
Patterson was awarA Of it, even if the
citizens who carried the Bill there, were
not. And that Mr.. Patterson had am
pile reason for his m,tion to table the
Bill can b. readily seen, when the fact
is stated that within less than forty
eight hours from the time thai the res
ideuts Of Nh: tenth Dist; outside the
lines OF the prop ,sel Special Dist. were
made aware that such Bill was pending,
Il rem0nstrance had been drawn UP,
nearly 100 signatures obtained, and the
same carried To Nashville by another
good citizen of the 10th Dist, MIR Pat
terson, when Intercepted concerning
ing the Bill pending, and which, as Mr..
Swea,y states, hid passed. the first read
ing in the House, would consent to de-
lay final action for only II very skori
time, else many more signatures might
have been obtained.
/. Regarding the posting of bill calling
the first meeting, we do not call this in
question. We will only say that the
people were not geperally informed rs
to the real intention of the Bill Ii
this were not 20, how could a certain
prominent menber of the committee
have failed to understand the boundary
lines, as included in the petition, before
said boundary lines were modified, rs
stated in our former article. And mn
other prominent resident of Ethridge
also, who had favored the petition for q
4 Special school Dist, did not know tha,
there was a proposition to extend the
boundary lines beyond their lawful linn
its. And if the object of the retaining
clause was not 50 much for the purpose
of retaining the tax now paid, as that
they might in future obtain the righ
to levy special tax for educational pur
poses, Why was it not so stated, in thei
plea. Instad of this being done, w
can state it as fact, that Il member oil
the committee, whose integrity canuo
be questioned, when soliciting the sign;
lures of certain parties to the petition
secured said signatures IN his ,suranc
that it would not involve any extra ex
pense to them, and the said committe
advocated througout that the prspo.e
brick schoolhousc would he built b
popular subscription. Now Mr. Sweat
ey says that the plan was to obtain TIL
right to levy special tax for Education,
purposes. We would like to ask, who:
plan was this, and why was it not a,
vocated, along with the other points
the petition, instead of being sacredl
held within the brains fits originator
Does it not hok as though some adval
tage had been attempted? Andif ne
- " did certain members of the con
mtlce when questioned as to the ia
Of the petition after the boundary lin
had been modified, give out the il
preston thar 4 matter hal been dro