The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1911-08-30
A FEEBLE EXPLANATION.


1t was to be expected the Bulletin
would wiggle about to find a way to
extricate itself from the charges Of
falsehood contained in the article OF
the Review of two weeks ago, but If
the feeble explanation contained IN
the last issue of the paper is the best
it has to offer, it we're better for it to
frankly confess that in its zeal to de-
feat the paving project, and at the
same time locate the blame upon the
owner of the Review, it was induced
to resort to Misrepresentation and
falsehood.
The Bulletin is forced to admit the
falsity of certain statements charged
against it, denies others and adds that
in order to strengthen its position it
possibly has made certain statements
without full knowledge of the facts,
but still insists that person who
owns a one-thirty-third interest in the
stock OF company, is a chief owner
of the concern, as though the relter-
alton of this absurd statement would
ease it's conscience or deceive any
body. In the next breath it adds an
other falsehood in Stating that Judge
Conner is attorney for certain private
interests that are seeking, through him
as chief owner and attorney, to bend
the city council of Denison to their
will ETC., and further states that he
admits that he is the owner OF $4,000
interest in the telephone company and
is attorney for the company, probably,
while the truth is, Mr.. Conner is not
now nor never has been attorney for
the telephone company and is not the
attorney for the electric light COM
pany and has not been for several
years.
In it's desperation the Bulletin has
the temerity to assert that certain
private interests (meaning, OF course
the telephone and electric light COM
panies) are seeking, through Mr.. Con-
ner, to exercise undue influence with
the city council. The Bulletin knows
that both of these concerns are cor
porations and can only act through
their officers, and as long as Mr..
Kuehnle is president and Mr.. Voss is
nf NJ
panies, and Mr.. Gulick is president
and Mr.. Woolston is vice-president OF
the other company, is the Bulletin
prepared to say that these gentlemen
are seeking, through any medium, to
tamper with the city council?
Every time the poor old Bulletin at
tempts to defend its attitude in the
controversy, it gets into deeper water,
and all because it cannot confine itself
to telling the simple truth. "Oh, what
a tangled webb We weave, when first
we practice to deceive"
It is not the first time the Bulletin
mas been caught in falsehoods about
the Review and it's editors, and we
confess that it is an almost useless
task to try to follow up it's misrepre-
sensations, and even more difficult to
make it acknowledge it's misstate-
ments or apologize for them. 1t was
but short time ago the Bulletin was
engaged in libeling the Review as to
it's subscription list and subscription
methods. 1t even made the mistake Of
giving alleged details. 1t told of a
man in Denison who said the Review
was being forced upon him and that
he could not stop it. This was not
true. The man mentioned said it was
not true. but the Bulletin did not apol.
ogize. 1t simply told Of another man,
and the Review again proved that this
was not true. But the Bulletin did
not apologize. 1t simply made another
Misrepresentation, bringing in the
name of another man, and this was
proved also not to be true. Was there
an apology? Nothing Of the kind.
Simply more general misstatements
in place of the specific ones. The pa
per is like flea; you put your finger
upon the spot where it is lying and
you only find that it is lying in another
spot.
The Bulletin seeks to vindicate