The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1918-02-01
JUDGE BATTERTON'S COMPU.
MENTS TO EDITOR
BRECKENRIDGE.

Mr. Desha Breckinridge's attacks
upon Secretary of War Baker and
other Government officials, have
brought down upon him many criti-
cisms- In the Lexington Herald of
Wednesday, County Judge Batter
ton, of Bourbon, pays his respects to
Mr.. Breckenridge in the following
letter, in which he vigorously denies
the statement that a Minority of the
people of Bourbon county approve
of his unpatriotic editorials"
Judge Batterton writes:
y Paris, KY, Jan. %, 1918.
Mr. Desha Breckenridge,
Editor Lexington Herald,
Lexington, KY.
Dear Sir
During the last few weeks have
read your unpatriotic editorials and
/ have refrained from writing to
you, because / dislike the notoriety d
letter may create, but since your
editorial of January 26th, together
with the quotations in the letter Of
your local correspondent. attacks
the patriotism of the good people Of
Bourbon county, believe that some
one should reply. Not that my
county people need defending, but
that they shall not be slandered
and remain silent.
your editorials do not meet with
the approval of the people of Bour-
bon county, for the people of Bour-
bon county are overwhelmingly in
favor of the steps taken by Presi-
dent Wilson and his conduct of the
war
81 do not know of the views of the
two persons specifically mentioned
in Mr.. Stivers' letter, but do know
of hundreds of others who do not
hold the same view. Mr.. Stivers
also knows of others and knew OF
them at the time he wrote this let
ter to you because l heard few ex-
press to him their disapproval OF
your editorials. Therefore he is
mistaken when he says he has not
heard of anything except approval.
81 also note with regret that you
will probably bolt your party again,
but / have expected this since you
failed to get the office of Collector
of Internal Revenue. This failure
is, also the probable cause of such
vicious attacks upon Mr.. Baker,
and. therefore, the President. There
should be added to this cause the
further fact that Mr.. Baker refused
to place a cantonment at Lexington
and the same was placed on the
.Craw-fish banks of the Ohio River
/ note from your editorials written
shortly after this was done that you
were very severe upon Mr.. BAKE"
and that you have continued your
criticisms from that date until this.
According to your editorial then
this place where the cantonment was
placed was the most unhealthy SPOT
in the world, but please examine the
reports Of deaths from this conton-
,neut and compare them with the re-
uofts from the other fifteen canton
ments and / believe that you will
find your predictions were errone-
Gus and this cantonment at Louis
Vile is probably the most healthful
one of the whole sixteen.
ITO show further you are often
mistaken in your editorials, it has
not been but just a few weeks since
you were very severe upon Mr.. Dan
iels, the Secretary of the Navy, COM
planning that he was a country
school master and country editor
and was not fitted to fill the position
which he now occupies, but within
the last few days an investigating
committee of the Senate has lauded
Mr.. Daniels to the skies and praised
his work, the efficiency of his man
agement and stated that within =,
: few months our navy would be
larger than the combined pavies of
world and if you were so mistaken
In regard to Mr.. Daniels efficiency.
A Il not highly probable that you
can also be mistaken in regard to
Mr.. Bakers efficiency?
ut is an easy matter to criticize
and I often wonder why you do not
offer advice and suggestions rather
than criticize. Why not in your in
finite wisdom advise the President
what to do? Why did you not ad-
wise your readers last summer to buy
their winter supply of coal, since
now you claim you knew conditions
would be just as they are? Why
not try to be conservative rather
than destructive?
THE only answer that 1 can see is
that anyone can criticise and will do
so when peeved, but it takes bril-
liant man to offer advice.
''Of course you will say that your
editorials are not unpatriotic; that
your criticisms are not directed
against Mr.. Wilson, but against an
inefficient cabinet; that you have the
privilege of making such comments