Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1853-10-20

ton as 70 the custody Of the girl was ar
ranged and settled by the parties who were
Immediately interested init.
I was not even made acquainted with the
terms Or conditions on which the girl was
returned; nor do 1yet know.
Ittmay be proper to state that when
Thornley, was here first, say on the esth
Sept, he applied to me for professional adj
vice, in regard to the custody Of the girl;
at which time he sought to retain me as
Counsel, if it became necessary to resort tol
legal proceeding. I then explicitly told
him that any proceeding at law in the case
must be on behalf, in the nameof the girls
mother; and that before, he could consider
me retained in the case, should require
him to satisfy me by written statement Of
"a highly respectable lawyer Of Cincinnati,
whom ! have personally known for eighteen
years as an uncompromising abolitionist,
that he wanted the girl for the purpose al
legged by him, and not, as was supposed by
some here, to enslave her.. To this condi-
ton he readily assented, and left me.
About the end Oct, he returned from
Cincinnati, bringing to me satisfactory
statement from the gentleman to whom
had referred him. After the receipt Of this
statement, / had nothing to do with the
question. And repeat that the allegation
contained in the paragraph under notice, SO
far as it relates to myself, is untrue.
Give this place in your paper, if you
please. ]. CARTWRIGHT.
In the above strange communication, we
have both contradiction and confrma-
ion Of little item of local intelligence,
published two weeks since, and which most
of our readers may have forgotten. Mr..
Cartwright attaches much more.importance
to it than we had considered it entitled to-
We stated that Mr.. c., as counsel, aided
Thornley, in getting the child. This is pro-
nounced untrue by him; and yet he ac-
knowledges that Thornley, applied to him
for advice, and that he gave him advice
that Thornley, sought to retain him as coun
sel-that he named the conditions of his
acceptance, and that Thornley, compiled
with these conditions; consequently Mr.. 9
was RETAINED as counsel. His client sue
ceeded in obtaining the child. And ye
Mr.. @. denies having aided him!
In the absence Of all other proof than il
contained in the communication, we thinl
our assertion is fully sustained, that Mr.
Cartwright, as counsel, did aid Thornley, il
obtaining possession of the child.
We think Mr.. Cartwright will not den.
that Mr.. Thornley, paid him fee. HOY
much or how little, we know not. We un
derstood from reliable persons that this fe
! was paid, in gold. Is it reasonable to sup
pose that Thornley, would give away hi
| gold, without receiving any equivalent?
Again, Mr. G. says he told Thornley, ths
. any action must be brought in the name {
0 the girls mother. Acting upon this sug
i gestion, the mother was Immediately ser
for, and remained here until the child wa
obtained
f Once more; Mr.. G. says that he require
Thornley, to obtain certain letter from
= certain abolitionist, to the effect that b
: wanted the child for legitimate and hol
, orable purpose. The fact that such lett
o was received was not long concealed fro
: our citizens; and that fact aided Thornle
e in obtaining the child, by allaying the e,
{ citement of our citizens. Is not Mr.. Car
IS wright responsible for this aid?
l. Whether Mr.. 9. did any thing more
p. whether he examined the records to s.
G if the indentures were legally recorded
Is = whether he expressed legal opinions whi
s induced Mrs. Addison to compromise rath
e, than expose herself to hazardous laws1
It, whether he advised Thornley, to col
III promise the matter, rather than subject
h, h. to legal investigatiOn-we say, whether
re did these things or not, we can not say.
bit is believed by many that he did. But it
'st not necessary to prove these things in orc
to substantiate the truth of the ASSERT
= that he aided Thornley, in obtaining
ak child. He proves that fact by his own cc
H. fession, and therefore his denial Of the char
In is altogether superAuous.
Yn In conclusion: If Mr.. Cartwright belle,
Of that Mr.. Thornley's intentions were go
IN and that he was justly entitled to the chi
in or, in other words, if the letter he recei'
u.s. from Cincinnati was satisfactory, why is
90 90 SO angry at US for saying that, as couni
He he aided Thornley,? Why did he heap
oh on us personal abuse, at our first meet
with him after said publication? w
me offence can he see in our stating a fact G
~ orally known, and which he confirms by
es- own statement? We really can see nc