Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1911-07-15
TO THE EDITOR OF THE
REPUBLICAN.

In last weeks issue OF the New
Time, under the head of editoria
notes, the editor, Mr. Truxton Tail
bott. i'm casting about for an excuse
for objectihg to Mr.. Rainey's bin fol
wen drilling for the village, says:
when Mr.. Rainey was first EN-
ployed by the board, the contract,
as the clerks records will show, call
ed for the drilling of one 40 foot vel
at $3.50 per foot, and Mr.. Rainey
to have any additional drilling at q
like price" This is an absolute
falsehood and nruxton Talbot kno
ws 1T lis false, as he has attended the
Village Board meetings and has
heard the contract read and discuss
ed numerous times. The clause in
MIR. Rainey's agreement relating to
Mr.. Rainey doing the additional work
reads as follows: "If smaller tes,
wells, or additional inch wells are
W UC ulhNOu, VIII uIuVc CuCAu
under the same conditions AT A
HRlCE TO BE AGREED UPON
WITH YOUR Engineer" rhe next cla
use reads, 81 do this work with the un'
derstanding that | shall have all the
well drilling to be done i'm connection
with the water works system at
Mountain Home, PROVIDED that the
PRICES ARE MUTUALLY AGREED
UPON and my work lis satisfactory
to your Engineer.
This contract was SO manifestly
fair to the village with reference to
any future drillimg, that lit could not
be attacked even by one so utterly
depraved as regards truthfulness,
as nruxton Talbot. But, true to his
practice, he publishes an outrageous
falsehood, and then proceeds Gin
the interest of the taxpayers(O), to
attack the falsehood Then to show
why the board entered into the con-
tract, he says, sit developed that
G. E. Corker was much interested In
MIR. Rainey having the contract, and
INVESTIGATION disclosed the fact
that Mr.. Corker held chattel mort
cages ON the Rainey WE'LL outfit, ag-
gregating $966.00," and a lot more
to- the effect that as Mr.. Rainey ow-
ed me $4,000 l was desirous of his
making a goodly profit SO l could lift
my mortgage, and Implying that it
was because of this fact that the
board employed Mr.. Rainey. AS a
matter of fact, INVESTIGATION
does NOT show that Mr., Rainey
owes or EVER DID owe me $4,000.
Talbot does not say that his Sher-
lock Holmes investigation disclosed
a debt of that amount He js too
truthfun(?) for that, but he wants
that understood, and he does say
| am desirous of lifting my mortgage,
ETC. Now let's see what an HON
EST Investigation of the county
and court records will show with
reference to my private business re-
lations with Mr.. Rainey. They will
show that i'm July, 1910, | filed a
chattel mortgage in the County Re-
corder's office in the amount of
100000 which mortgage ON file re-
cites in substance the fact that Charl-
es Pascoe and myself went ON a
bond for Mr.. Rainey, and
the mortgage was given to protect
us from any loss, should We have
to pay the bond. Then, conducting
the Investigation" further, i'm the
interest of the Taxpayers, the court
records of the case would disclose
the fact that the case was dismissed
shortly afterward. So much for
100000 of the $4,000 mares nest.
Possibly l had no right to go ON
Mr.. Rainey's bond without first