Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1922-05-18
NOTICE TO RErRAcr

The Record is in receipt of "notice
to retract" from B. H. Tong, coun-
ty engineer. We print herewith the
retraction notice served. And here is
our answer: We retract nothing Said
in that statement. The matter we
published is absolutely true, and we
stand ready and willing to prove it
in court, if Mr.. Tong doesn't get cold
feet.
BY the way, it looks as though Mr..
Fogle ought to come through, too.
Why not, boys? Let's fight this out
to finish.
AS to Mr.. Tong, we can prove some
of those allegations by his own signed
statements. Others we can prove
from his own statements over the
telephone-AND WE WE'RE CARL
Full TO HAVE ANOTHER WIT
NESS ON THE TELEPHONE
WHEN WE SECURED THEM.
We repeat it now. Our statements,
as quoted in this retraction notice,
are unqualifiedly true, and we are
ready and willing to prove them in
court. We further charge now that
Tong lied to the Record man over
the telephone about his investigation
Of the bridge company's bill. He
first claimed that he had telephoned
to Hague to find out if the material
was delivered and, when pressed to
name the person he talked to, he ad-
mitted that he had not personally
phoned at all, but had asked Joe
Volk cashier Of the Peoples State
Rank to phone. We then tried to
corroborate Tong's statements in
that respect, and the only information
we could get from Mr.. Volk was that
he didn't remember.
Come on with your retraction no.
tees Tong. But what has happened
to Fogle? Doesn't it look like you
both ought to come through with re-
traction notices? Your cases will
never come up for trial until AFTER
election anyway.
Here's the retraction notice served
On US on behalf of Mr.. Tong. We
retract nothing but reaffirm the truth
Of each and every statement in the
article quoted in the notice. Does
that cover the bill, Mr.. Tong? It
Hooks as if it is up to you to finish
what you have started. So hop to
it. The retraction notice is as fol-
lows:
TO F. B. sTREETER, OWNER,
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR OF
THE EMMONS COUNTY REC
ORD, A WEEKLY NEWS
PAPER PUBLISHED AT LIN
TON, EMMONs COUNTY,
/ NORTH DAKOTA
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That the
statements published by you in the
Emmons County Record, concerning
the undersigned, which statements
are hereinafter specifically quoted
were and are false, libelous and de-
famatory and l hereby request that
the same be withdrawn and retracted
pursuant to section 1862 Of the laws
OF 1913. The said statements were
published in the said newspaper in its
issue Of the 11th day Of May, 1922,
on the first page, and in double
column thereof, and under the head
ing, "Our Taxes-And Why" and
were as follows 80 81 q s5s
=, and we charge the county
engineer with being partial towards
the said bridge company in the mat
ter Of inspection and supervision Of
its work. Further, We
charge that the county engineer IA
vored the local bridge company as
against possible competitors: To be,
specific, the engineer informed the
competitive bidders for the Hague
bridge that he-the engineer-would
require that the sand for the bridge
be screened The bridges built for
the county by Mr.. Fogle were not SO
built. Further the engineer, over his
own, signature indicated that he hau
intended to keep an inspector on the
job continually if O'Donald had re-
ceived the, contract, whereas he ex-
pected to pay little or no attention
to Fogle's work, should Forle be the
successful bidder. Further, the en-
gineer o. KS the bridge COM
pany's bill without himself investi-
eating to find out whether or not the
requirements Of the contract had
been fulfilled. I" fs h .{s a
Dated at Linton, North Dakota,
this 18th day cf May, 1922.
4, B. H. TONG.
}5sA girl i running for congress. One
more misrepresentation