Mexico Missouri message. (Mexico, Audrain County, Mo.) 1899-1918, 1910-04-07
In Answer to Judge Carriers Open
Letter. z, ss. 10,

IN my signed communication OF tht
Daily Intelligencer Of March 18th that
would indicate that | wished to de-
ceive anyone?
ANSWER. The only attempt in
that article TO deceive Is, by inference
in that communication you talk as
II the County Court had been and was
anxious 20 submit this proposition Tor
the people 20 vote upon; now II they
are so anxious TO give the people
chance 10 vote at the general election
why have they not done so before,
when IL is O. well known fact that the
people have been dissatisfied with the
Office. since 80 was established. DO the
peoplp OF Audrain think that the
County Judges would have ever given
them an opportunity to vote on this
question, haI .at some one started
a petition?
QUESTION .. Why did you not
answer my signed communication in
place Of the one where I was mis-
quoted?
ANSWER. Simply because there
was nothing especially obnoxious lH
YOUR signed communication, while BIO
the other there was, and as ! had no
way of knowing that you had been
misquoted ] took It for granted that
you had been correctly quoted and
hence answered accordingly.
QUESTION 3. Why don't you come
out from under cover and tell the p2o-
pie what your grievance is?
ANSWER. / don't exactly know
what YOU mean by this, as everything
| ever did in my life has been open
and above board In all the un-
pleasautness that ! have had with
the County Court, and ] suppose this
is what YOU have reference 10, ] have
been open and free telling you to your
face, what ] had to say; making my
fights iu open. taking victory or de-
feat which ever came, like a man. ]
am not pushing this because OF any
grievance; but because some one had
to start and ] had been urged by many
TO lead out and since / started the
first petition, hundreds Of Audrain
best citizens have taken up the cause,
simply because they think the Office
a nuisance.
QUESTION 4. In regard to Mr..
Wakefield?
ANSWER. ! have no recollection
of being OF the opinion two years ago,
that MIR. Wakefcld's appointment was
a mistake but If l was of that opinion
then | am not now, as Mr.. Wakefield
body; and as to me making any sug-
gestious to the Court, 1t would have
been useless as the Court is so pre-
JUDGED against me that when thirty
five out of fOrty-Onc of the tax payers
in my road district signed petition
for my appointment, the Court turned
them down, regardless of the re-
quests of this large majority, how
ever, / am not after Mr.. Wakefield S
scalp, but the Office of Highway En-
gineer.
QUESTION 3. Are you afraid the
people will change their minds after
considering the cost of operations,
with the Office of Highway Engineer
abolished?
ANSWER. No sir. ] have no fear
that the people Will change their
minds after investigation, and | wish
them to have from now until August
2nd to investigate, and | hope they
will take the trouble to investigate for
themselves and not take anybody s
word for Il; and after the PEOPLE have
had such an opportunity, should they
change their minds it will be alright
with me. / think the good people OF
Audrain know what they want.
also think they have plenty of brains
to investigate for themselves and to
act for themselves without the tutor
ship of their learned Presiding Judge.
QUESTION G. If it is a money con-
sideration, don't you think you could
better afford to pay your small pro-
portiouate part, then to devote your
valuable time getting mp this question!
ANSWER. The American people
could have afforded TO pay the
English stamp tax but they found the
principle; now sir it is the principle
of fastening a useless Office upOn the
people, which followed to its con
clusion would permit the endless
fastening Of useless things upon the
people, hence we intend to kill tho
Hydra Headed Monster in its inclp
iency.
QUESTION :. If it is for the fnan
cial welfare of the county, why die
you not think of hat when you werD
causing the county II of that expense
in those lawsuits you were havinl
with the county? Are you not just
little sore toward the County Court?
ANSWER ! have had no real sui
with the county, simply did no
think their settlement just and hena
appealed and when the case was call
ed for trial the County Court took m
up at my proposition for compro
mise, and paid me what ! asked, an
also paid the costs, thus showing tia
they were in the wrong and that ] wa
in the right, If anybody put tn
county to expense, 1t was the couF
by their failure to give me jus
settlement and so acknowledged >
their settlement of the appeal. No
am not sore at the court, but don't
look like the court was a little soi
at me, when they turn down thirty
five out of fOrty-one petitioners an
they fail to give me n just settlement
and afterwards by their actions a
knowledge it?
QUESTION OR STATEMENT
I have no interest in the matter, e,
cept for the good OF the county; q
only objection ] have to your NOV