The Sedalia Weekly Bazoo

HEARD'S LETTER.
A Lengthy Review of the Situation and Answer to the "Bazoo."

He Could not Endorse Russell for Postmaster While They Were Enemies,
Even if it Was the Will of the Democratic Party of Pettis County.

An Intended Electioneering Document Which Fades Into Very Thin Air.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 5, 1886.

Editor Bazoo: It is not my intention to enter into a controversy with you on the subject of the appointment of a postmaster for Sedalia any further than to correct you in some of your misstatements, as published in the editorial in your issue of January 3d. That I stated to different persons, during the last summer, that I would not recommend Mr. Russell is probably true; for at that time he was my enemy, and doing what he could against me. Under such circumstances no one would expect me to recommend or to cease to resist his appointment. Mr. Russell is not now my enemy, and it is my duty, as I see it, to consider his claims as I do those of other candidates. I believe that Mr. Russell is the choice of a majority of the democrats interested in the conduct of the office, and on that ground solely I shall recommend him.

I don't intend being led into a discussion of Mr. Russell's course toward me, further than to say that whatever wrong he has done me I believe he regrets, and I am able to forgive.

The interests of the democratic party in our city and county could not be advanced by keeping alive a feeling of bitterness and personal enmity between Mr. Russell and myself, and I believe that most members of said party who feel no personal interest in this postoffice contest, and who are not unrelenting enemies of either Russell or myself, were glad when our enmity ceased.

It is hard to understand why, if men are really my friends, they desire to see me have enemies when I can avoid it without sacrifice of principle. I think that to most persons who know you and me, and who also understand your bitter hatred of Russell, it will occur that the interest you manifest in my course in this matter, proceeds less from your friendship for me than from your hatred to Russell and the newspaper with which he has been connected.

One word with reference to your allusion to what I told Mr. McNees about the strength of his support. If Mr. McNees authorized the statement published by you, he was mistaken in my language. I did not say "that his petition covered a majority of the moral and substantial democrats of the county." I said to him, "your petition is a very strong one, and represents many of the most substantial and moral democrats of the community, but I am satisfied that Russell has a stronger following, embracing more of the active party workers." I am sure Mr. McNees does not intend to misrepresent me, but his misunderstanding makes me reflect upon the character of the support, not only of Russell, but of all the candidates except McNees. I don't intend being drawn into any quarrel with Mr. McNees or his friends, most of whom, I am sure, are also my friends.

Permit me further notice of your article to say that I "ignore no friends," that the wrath of enemies "may be appeased," as you flippantly charge. In my honest judgment, Mr. Russell has a stronger support in his party than any one of his competitors, and on that conviction I base my action. If I did not so believe I certainly would not be foolish enough to recommend him; for no representative, aside from his duty to serve the majority, as he interprets its expression, can afford, as a matter of policy, to array himself with the minority against the more popular side. From your standpoint I should recommend only someone who had never been against me, and that I am at liberty to choose the candidate for recommendation, applying only the test of his past and present attitude towards me personally. If so, then why have any expression from the people at all? And since we have an expression, and I being responsible to the people for the rectitude of my action, to be permitted to interpret that expression, or shall some one else do it for me? I have better opportunities for judging of the strength of the support given the different candidates, having all the papers, letters, etc., before me than you have, and I am as good a friend to my party and to the public as you can claim to be, I must, therefore, decline to permit you to direct my course in this matter, and it is my misfortune if I lose your friendship simply because I can forget an injury personal to myself and because I refuse to adopt your spites and punish your enemy.

In one of your editorials in the paper hereinabove referred to, you say the Bazoo has no right to make on Mr. Russell, &c. Of course this statement will deceive nobody. You have only ceased to fight him since you found out that your opposition can't defeat him, and you transfer the fight to me, because you think you maybe able to defeat me. I think you will find that the democratic party of the city and county will be as loth to adopt your spite against me, as I was disinclined to permit it to control me, in my conduct towards Russell. Outside of the close personal friends of each of the respective candidates, the great body of our party, and of the people, generally, feel no interest in the decision of this post office question, further than to secure a good postmaster; and while each and every democrat affected by the appointment has his personal preferences between the different aspirants; yet, loving the success of his party, his greatest desire is to see the appointment of that one, whose success will most solidify and strengthen that party. I believe that the appointment of Russell will accomplish that end. I don't think that any man doubts that Russell has as much, if not more strength than any other one candidate. That he is as consistent a democrat as any in the field, none will deny, and on the score of party service, it will not be contended that any other contestant is his equal. That all of the gentleman named in connection with this place, are fully competent to discharge the duties of the same, will be conceded; and there is not one of them who would not make an acceptable and popular official. These things being true, why should I not consider them, and, to the best of my ability, act with judicial fairness between the parties, and with an eye single to the faithful discharge of a most disagreeable, but none the less imperative duty.

There is not one among the competitors of Mr. Russell whom I would not have a right to claim as a friend, and whom I would not just as cheerfully endorse for this place, if I believed he were the choice of my party; and in honesty and fairness, no one of them has any more right to complain of my indorsement of Russell, than he, or Russell would have had, if I had indorsed any other one of the number. It is, perhaps, true, that some of them might not have become candidates but for the enmity there existing between Russell and myself; still, unless some of them have a stronger following than Russell they certainly can't complain of being injuriously affected by the reconciliation of Russell and myself.

As I have stated, I don't think that any one of them have it.

Now, Mr. Editor, in conclusion, let me say that, with this communication, I shall have done with this subject so far as concerns its discussion through your paper. I have refrained from the use of slang epithets; for I think their use never justifiable, and at long range--cowardly and contemptible. When you state through your paper, or otherwise, that I have acted with "perfidy," or in bad faith towards anybody in this matter, you state that which is false; and I think that everybody who knows us both, will so believe. Finding your spite against Russell unavailing, you now undertake my political annihilation because I refuse to subscribe to the doctrine of "eternal hate," and decline to be an instrument in your hands for the perpetuation of your personal animosity to a man who is now my friend. Permit me to say that with the democrats of Pettis county, I think you will find that you have taken a good big contract. They have known me longer than they have known you; and they never yet saw me fail in the performance of my political duty; and they will have confidence to believe that, in this instance, while I may make a mistake, I will not intentionally wrong my party, or do violence to the right of any individual member of it.

Very Respectfully,

Jno. T. Heard.