Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1854-09-02
DAVID n. MONTGOMERY AND THE
sUNBURY GAZETTE.

sUNBURY GAZETTE.
The editor Of the Sunbury Gazette has
at last made an effort 10 rescue MIR. Mont
gomery from The position, or tight place in
which we have placed him, in regard 10
his votes in the legislature. They have
therefore attempted defence Of his votes
on the liquor law, or perhaps, we should
say, they attempt 10 cover his retreat from
that position, by throwing up false works,
10 shield him from the fire of his adverse
rles. The editor, after informing his read
ers, that he had now in his possession
copy of the Legislative Record, from which
we made our charges, introduces an article
from the Pittsburg Dispatch, on the subject,
and then proceeds to refer TO the same pa
ges OF the Record, TO which we referred,
without disprovinga single charge that we
made against MIR. Montgomery. After
having piled upa confused mass of legisla-
tion, and enveloped both himself and his
readers in cloud OF mystery, he attempts
to extrcate Mr.. Montgomery by the fol-
lowing bold declaration, which makes
every thing as clear as mud.
eve now feel satisfied, and do no, hesitate
to assure our readers that Montgomery was
falsely accused by the American, Of having
voted on both sides Of the liquor law. His
course was quite consistent from beginning 10
end, and he at no time voted for a Maiue
Liquor Law trhtch tcas to go into effect at any
future period.
Thus, after having waded through sever
al columns Of mystifed legislation, the edi-
tor OF The Gazette comes TO the conclusion
that Mr.. Montgomery voted for no bill that
was TO 60 into effect at future period
We should certainly like 10 know how a
bill could go into effect at any other time,
certainly not before it was passed.
II is true that Mr.. Montgomery voted on
different bills, and that the first bill he vo-
ted against, was an absolute liquor law, and
which he knew could not be passed. But
it is also true that he voted for the only
liquor law that could be passed, and voted
with the Maine liquor law men from the
beginning to the end, or final passage ol
that bill. And yet he has attempted tc
create an impression that he was opposed
= to the liquor law in every shape, and as
serted 10 a number of individuals, in tht
lower end of the county, that he uniformly
and on all occasions, voted as the Berk
4 county members did on this subject, ant
referred TO the Journal where he voted will
them against the law, but neglected show
ing them where he voted in faror OF th
bill, four times in one day, or until its fina
passage, directly in opposition TO the vote
of the Berks county members. He ba
also endeavored to create the impression
!. and has stated, that the bill he votedSoI
II was confined TO Northumberland county
. where, he said, he knew it could be de
" feated, when be well knew that there wa
not even shadow o! truth in such state
N ment.
A copy OF the Sunbury Gazette OF th
day was put into our hands, just as we wer
" going 10 press. We have therefore roof
= only 10 notice, briefly, its absurd statemen
. IN defense Of David B. Montgomery.
: The editor attempts to excuse Montgon
y ery's vote taxing the coal of this region, b
:, saying that Gen. Packer the President, an
- John b. Packer, Esq, one Of the dirccto
=. of the Susquehanna rail road did the san
thing. We have only room to say th
there is not even shadow OF truth III Il
10 statement, as we will show next week.
re We had supposed such charge to be t,
te supremely ridiculous for even the Gazett
Of or the friends of Montgomery to max
,y But desperate cases require desperate rem
,is dies, and drowning men catch at slraws.
The idea of sensible men voluntarily d
r stroying that Tor which they labored
whole winter, is too absurd 10 be entertain
~ by any one not hopelessly insane. T
~. Gazette must presume largely on the gull
bility OF its readers.
a MONTGOMERY AND EXTRA PAY.