Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1853-07-16
JOHN @. nIoNreoMER AND THE
BRIBERY CASE.

came to us with a p,onunciomento signed
by John G. Montgomery Esq, of Danville,
addressed to the people Of Northumberland
county, in reply TO an editorial article in
our paper OF the I'd inst, on the bribery
prosecution. In its pretensions, this docu-
ment would do no discredit to one of the
subordnates of Santa Anna, or, to that re-
nowned hero himself. But unfortunately,
like the manifestoes of his great prototpye,
most of the facts in Mr.. Montgomery's
epsile are made TO order, or exist only in
disturbed Imagination.
Mr.. Montgomery sets out by charging US
with "halting between two opinions for
several months, fearing the indignation OF
the people on one hand, and the ire OF the
corrupt;onists on the other, and at last taking
our stand in favor of the latter" In this
community, and wherever we are known,
or our paper is read, this charge will carry
with it its own refuation, and no man
knows its talsity better than Mr.. Montgom-
cry himself. At the mass meeting held in
Sunbury in March, MIR. Montgomery and
several citizens from Danville was present,
"for a purpose" no doubt, known TO him
self. He was exceedingly restless and con-
siderably excited, and as he had hand in
preparing the resolutions in Danville, he
doubtless took great interest in the proceed
ings, even though he was not then ''one Of
counsel of the people" At that meeting
Mr.. Montgomery called us aside, and urged
us to come out against "the corruptionists"
as he called them, saying il we did not,
our paper would be prostrated. We told
Mr.. Montgomery distinctly that we were
opposed to the principle of county sub
scriptions, and had so stated in our columns,
but that we never had doubt that this
subscription would prove good and pro-
fitable investment, and as the act OF the
Commissioners was legal one, we could
never countenance the foul doctrine of re-
pudiation, and farther, that we always had
been in the habit Of pursuing a course
that We thought right, independent Of par
ty, clique, or individuals, and when we
could no longer do that, the Press might
90 TO the and we would 60 TO some
thing else. MIR. Montgomery then request
ed us TO recollect his prediction, viz that
our paper would go down or be prostrated
in very few years. We then replied
that these same predictions had been made
once a year, for twelve years, or since this
paper was established, and that we had
gone on increasing every year, notwith-
standing these prophecies. The truth is,
we were always somewhat skeptical on the
subject Of the prophets and patriots of the
present day, and Mr.. Montgomery must
excuse us, when we tell him that we have
no faith in modern prophets, from Joe
Smith down to himself. MIR. Montgomery
doubtless recollecs this conversation, if
not, others present do. We only refer to
it now TO show the fallacy Of his charge
that we halted between two opinions, as
well as the treachery Of his own memory.
We have nothing 10 say in regard TO the
"committee Of safety" who reported the
testimony of MIR. Albert, except that one
of them though. there was very little in il,
and that we fully concur in the remark
made by Judge Pollock before the Justice,
that "he would not confne dog in his
kennel, for one moment, on such evidence"
MIR. Montgomery then proceeds 10 say
that
"lndictments were sent 10 the Grand Jury
al the April Sessions, which were ignored,
but not, as Mr.. Masser says for "want of ev.
idence," as will clearly show, but for eau
ses well known 10 you, and which am free
to say, TeAec dishonor on a majority of the
Grand Jury"
| Yet, strange TO say, Mr.. Montgomery
does not only, not "clearly show" what
these causes were, but actually never refers
to them afterwards. We don't say what
kind Of "logic" MIR. Montgomery has sin
bis cranium," but if he designates this good
logic, we humbly confess that We are not
lawyer enough to comprehend it, especial
ly when he attempts TO iasten dishonor, by
its application, upon so respectable body
of men as The Grand Jury of this county
Hudibrass himself would hardly recognize
him true disciple of his school, although
be may be
One OF that stubborn crew,
or errant 1--WE will not say erring) saints, whom al
men grant
To be the true church militant.
Mr.. Montgomery also states that our
"denial Of the force of the evidence, al
though made for purpose, reflects upon
the integrity Of the Justice" Here Mr.
Montgomery's logic is again at fault. Il
such is the case, then no man can diffel
from his neighbor, withou. fixing upon hin
the impulation of being rogue. Besides
in the face OF all this Mr.. Montgomer,
charges the majority OF the Grand Jur,
with hayin0 d;sboporaJ than,oot,,o r.