The Hayti herald. (Hayti, Mo.) 1908-1922, 1915-06-10
truth, while all the Herald can b.

truth, while all the Herald can be
accused of is stating the facts.
The county court was libeled and
the people deceived, and under
the circumstances it became the
duty of the Herald as news.
paper upon which it's constituents
can depend for facts, to state the
truth, which should be, accord.
ing to our way of thinking, not
only favor to Mr.. Smyth, but
to the public generally.
To nail a lie and establish the
truth was the sole purpose of
our former article. We did not
express an opinion as to the
merits Of Mr.. Smyth's or Mrs.
! Ford's legal citizenship. We
merely stated that both of their
names were removed from the
papers they had signed, and
they were. We stated that both
are temporarily sojourning in
Texas, and they are. We stated
that both, therefore, held similar
citizenship, and they do. We
stated that the county court
treated both alike, and the court
did. We did not state that we
had information that Mr.. Smyth
expected to become a citizen of
Texas. We stated that the
county court had some informa.
tion to that effect, but be that
true or untrue, it has nothing to
do with the falsehood the Argus
circulated. The county court
also had Mrs. Ford's declaration
by telegram that she was a citi-
zen of Charlottesville, yet re.
fused to count her; and we are
still of the opinion that if the
court showed partiality in this
instance it was not towards sa.
looms, as the Argus tries to make
it appear. Possibly if the county
court had not been interfered
with by the usual bunch of
chronic agitators the signers
would have been counted as they
had signed. This is why useless
and fanatical meddling generally
does more harm than good, es-
pecially when such fanatics have
a newspaper to send out mis-
statements of what is done.
AS said, we did not formerly
express our opinion as to the lie.
gality of the citizenship of Mr..
Smyth and Mrs. Ford, but since
our correspondent seems entirely
concerned with this point, we of.
fer our ideas for what they are
worth. While we did not so
state, it was our opinion then,
and is now, that Mr.. Smyth
should have been counted on the
remonstrance and Mrs. Ford
should have been counted on
the petition; and, as we say,
we believe the court would have
done this had it not been for the
interference of the meddlers. Mr..
Smyth states that his home is
in Charlottesville, and that ought
TO settle it-he ought to know, ii
anyone does. And we claim the
same right for Mrs. Ford. She
has always claimed Caruthers.
vile as her home, and she ought
to know. AS to her marriage to
Mr.. Ford, we are not quite so
certain as Mr.. Smyth is that
that invalidates her citizenship.
Because she married a Texas
man is no proof that she also
welded the State of Texas; and
it is certain that her status as a |
citizen was no more changed than
Mr.. Smyth's would have been had
he married Texas woman. For
what we know, Mr.. Ford may
not be citizen of Texas. and if
he is, it may be that he is pleased
with his wife's Missouri home.
We have heard of such things
being an incentive to marriage.
Mr.. Smyth's reference to
Judge H. G. Schult is obviously
and shows that he
wrote in ii piqued frame of mind,
Why should Judge Schult's citi-
have been questioned?
AS Mr.. Smyth says, he was not
absent from Missouri twelve
and no one we know of
that he had changed
his citizenship. He did not vote
elsewhere, and as he does not
sign saloon petitions or remon.
Mr.. Smyth certainly
knows there was never any Oc-
casion to question his citizenship.
A man NAV he for a righteous
cause and perfectly honest, but
human nature is such that his