Current Article:

Mr. Stewart Rises to Explain. Slanders of Jeffords and Vaughters Answered

Mr. Stewart Rises to Explain. Slanders of Jeffords and Vaughters Answered
Categories Scioto County Infirmary

Mr. Stewart Rises to Explain. Slanders of Jeffords and Vaughters Answered

“Editor Times- In looking over the last issue of the Tribune I find that I, with yourself, have been attacked with untrue and slanderous reports in regard to the examination of the County Infirmary, and our proceedings there.”

“First, Mr. Jeffords says ‘the object of the visit of Mr. Cooper and Mr. Stewart was, as stated by them to me, to look up a bible said to have been sent to the Infirmary by the YMCA, which matter, by the way, they never alluded to in the article of the Times.'”

“I pronounce the above wholly untrue as regards the statements of Jeffords. We stated to him when entering the building that we wished to look through all the apartments of the building; the bible was not mentioned until after we had made an examination of the whole building, and, being in conversation with one of the inmates, (Mr. Faverty, a man of bright intellect,) that the bible was spoken of, when I made the inquiry whether a bible of large print had ever been furnished the inmates, stating that a member of the YMCA had stated to me that he had mande application to the directors to furnish a bible of large print, that could be read by the older inmates, and was told that none had been received. Mr. Cooper was then in another room. Again, he says:”

“‘I kindly invited Mr. Cooper and his friend, Mr. Stewart, to take supper with the family, which invitation they declined, and, as a reason, Mr. Cooper said he must find a water closet, and forthwith started for one, when, very shortly afterward, I saw Mr. Cooper and his friend Stewart regaling themselves out of a bottle. I have heard whisky called by many names, but never before as water closet. The name must have originated with Mr. Cooper. The frequence of these visits to the water closet was soon apparent on Mr. Cooper’s friend, who came to me twice and asked Mr. Cooper was, as he could not find him.'”

“The whole of this is false, as at the time of the invitation for supper was given, I was sitting in the room occupied by Mr. Faverty, and remarked that I would be down and see Cooper in a shirt time, which I did. Not finding him, I inquired of his whereabouts, and was told by Jeffords that he was in the third story of the building, when I returned and entered the room I had just left and remained there until joined by Mr. Jeffords in company with Mr. Cooper, and we conversed a few moments and returned to the family sitting room. Our reason for thus separating was to prevent Mr. Jeffords from always being present when an inmate was interviewed, as we believed it would enable us to have the freest conversation with them. He further says:”

“‘Another feature of this examination is it was made almost entirely after dark.'”

“This is also untrue, as we arrived at the building near three o’clock, and had visited all rooms, with three exceptions, before the invitation to take supper or a light was made in the halls. We did not remain ten minutes after lights were procured, when we returned to the sitting-room, where records were examined for ages, deaths, etc, and remained not later than eight o’clock, when we withdrew to the gate spoken of by Jeffords. Here he gives a statement of a conversation, which is untrue in every particular, no such conversation ever having taken place. This I attribute to the state of Mr. Jeffords’ mind, as he was in great fear of Mr. Cooper’s investigation being made public, imploring his leniency as far as possible, state that he was ‘a poor man, and had to work for his maintenance, and not be hard on him.’ This appeared to be his dread, and not until we had started did he cease his pleadings.”

“I will not give attention to Mr. Vaughters. He says:”

“‘I am told that Mr. Hugh Stewart was with John the Baptist, and in fact, brought him in his buggy, and seemed (between drinks) to be furnishing him with his items. Stewart is an enemy of Mr. Craig‘s because Craig sued him to get his just dues, and he is not an admirer of mine, because I declined to let him have hay from the Infirmary farm on credit, as I had fears of getting the money.'”

“The above is a base falsehood. As to my having any embittered feeling toward Craig, it is untrue, and any aid I may give will be in behalf of the public, as I am near the farm, and think it my duty to assist in any way I can in having the matter put before the people.”

“Mr. Vaughters says, ‘I am not admirer of his.’ This is correct. He further states that as a cause, that he refused to sell me hay from the farm on credit. This is wholly untrue, as I had no reason to ask, nor did I ask for hay on credit, as a balance was due me, as the following statement from the books of the Infirmary Board will show, this account or balance having been due one year or over, and Mr. Vaughters refused to settle the amount in hay or any other way, and the amount was not paid until about the twentieth of January, 1874:”

By Stewart, for stone$55.55
To Stewart, for hay$30.00
To Stewart$20.00
By Stewart, for hogs$15.00
Total$70.55$50.00
Balance paid to order $20.55

“I find numbers of misrepresentations, not pointed directly at me, which I know to be untrue, and leave you to dispose of as your see proper. I merely give the above statements to rid myself of the charges made against me. Having accompanied you through the investigation, I am charged with interference in matters which is the business and duty of every tax-payer in our county to assist in. -HD Stewart. Portsmouth, March 12, 1874.”1

  1. Mr. stewart rises to explain. slanders of jeffords and vaughters answered. (1874, March 14). Portsmouth Times, p. 4.
Prev Mismanagement of the Infirmary Farm
Next Mismanagement of the Infirmary: Denials that Deny Nothing.