Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-07-29
Mr.. LOCKER is
GIVEN SUPPORT
South Amboy Residents 0pin-
ion on School Matter.

oouIH AmDOy, N. j., July u, 1917.
EDITOR EVENING NEWS:
In justice to Mr.. Locker and the
citizens behind this movement, |
wish to state to the public, through
your paper, that he is not alone in
this matter, and so deny the state
ments Mayor Welsh and Mr.. Sutliff
made at the council meeting, and
wish further to emphasize my opin-
ion that a citizen who is able to ex-
pose such an attempt to defy the
people and whose arguments are so
true That these men cannot answer
them only by abuse, is not a nuts
ance.' Such men the city needs
more of.
This letter was sent to the South
Amboy Citizen but was not printed
for some reason or other that | don't
know of.
Yours very truly,
CHI. FIN.
1t is as follows:
Dear Sir
| wish through your paper to deny
the statements of Mayor Welsh and
Mr.. John Sutliff that Mr.. Locker was
the only citizen behind the public
movement against the course of the
Board of Education. CounciImen
Stuart and Slower have already
shown that this was false. To my
knowledge the remarks of Mr.. Lock
er are the sentiments of nan of the
taxpayers, and they are giving him
credit for so plai4ly setting forth
their objections. The statements of
these officials appear false on their
face.
l also want to say that they ought
not to have been allowed to offer
abuse to a citizen when they could
not give any denial to the facts.
Abuse Is not argument and abuse is
generally the weapon only used by
men who are caught in a trap.
The mayor did not deny that he
had helped along the plans of these
men who intended to buy his lots
and hand him $~6,400.00. He did
not deny he had voted with them on
this question. He didn't say any
thing to show the people that after
this scheme had been killed he laid
aside his personal interest and voted
with the few members of the Board
of Education who favored this last
scheme, because he believed that
they were wiser than the people who
thought the purpose of spending
$55,000.00 on the present schools
was a mistake. The mayor did not
tell the council that he had opposed
them because he knew better than
they what was best for the city. He
did not say that he had stood by the
Board Of Education in their opposi-
ton to every influence, including
the advice of county and state off,
Gals, because he believed all these
were mistaken. He admitted, sim
ply, that he had stood by them. This
was exactly what the public already
knew and had said. He id not find
any fault with the board for squan-
dering one thousand dollars of
school money for plans before they
knew whether they would need
them. He found no fault with tho
Board of Education for intending to
buy lots on which to build a school
when the city owned a much better
location. No, he simply said they
had done right and he stood by
them. 1t was his word against
many that were surely better judges
and the people prefer TO believe the
many. He offered no reasons and
only used abuse which I believe he
ought not to have been allowed to do
by the president of the council. Mr..
Sutliff's 8 was, If possible, worse;
he did not deny voting for paying
100000 for those plans that are
passed into the waste basket. He
didn't say that he offered one word
of objection, or found any fault with
the other members for wasting this
money. His remarks were not any
defense, or wen apology for his
siding with the present scheme. He
practically wanted it to be known
that his wisdom and knowledge was
superior to those who did not agree
with him in his estimation. The
rest was abuse that was equal to a
confession that he had defied the
people and was proud of it.
To my mind this reveals a sad
state of things that, I think, the
people are thinking about very seri-
ously and things that any reasonable
men should blush at.
Yours very truly,
rIJ InNT