Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-11-13
or the Chronicle.
S. CLArRsvILLE, o., Nov. Z, 1856.


S. CLArRsvILLE, o., Nov. Z, 1856.
James F. CHARLEswoRTH-Sir:
I end in yesterdays "Ind9endent RepEb-
iicen" letter directed to me from you in
reply to. N.Y. card on the subject Of your
electioneering circular. False as were your
unprOvoked charges against me in that cir
eular. the charges in this letter are still
more base and fulse. As to your first iBti-
mstien that am one ofthe Editors of the
CHRONICLE; if il were true, certainly
should not be ashamed of it, and nv name
would appear at its head, but it is untrue.
did not say, IS you assert, that kno,O moth.
ing OF the "Richland" article being written,
but did say, and repeat, that knew moth
ing of it till l saw it in the CHRokIcLE.-
You c-y "cliqne" some four or five times in
your letter, much as the purloiner of goods
is the loudest to cry "stop theft" l leave
the public to Judge whether ycu or 1 have
done the most in the attempt to defeat the
aims of the isLocofocos" with whom you
say have such strong afinities) in the
campaign just closed. 1t strikes me as be-
ing decidedly COO for Fillmore and Daven-
port man to charge Republicans with getting
up "stool-pigeon" candidates, whom they
have no hope Of elccting, for men to throw
away their votes upon. You say that at
tempt by special pleading to evade the facts
set forth in your circular. Now what said
of those "fscts" was that they were untrue,
and j: that 10 special pleading the meaning
Of the term must have been changed very
recently. You persist in your first state
ment that when you got hume from Mexico
you found our letter to your father there,
~ ~hich was written June ~, ls49. and you
proceed stcous,oersbIe length togive reasons
for NOT getting home sooner. First. You
were not discharged till July 3lst, Is4s.-
Grant it. Second. You were kept waiting
at the pay table for yo"r turn. You don't
ssy how long. Third. You went to Kali
amszoo (about f,0enty miles from hone) and
staid there all the winter of 1859. Not
very probable. To use your own language
.'other testimony than your word will be
necessary to convince me, or the public
that alter long sbsence in Mexico ycu
stopped within twenty miles of home ane
remained there three monIns or more, before
going home. But grart it. Now you have
got to the Spring o. IS49, and you then, you
say, srrived at your fathers house and founc
my letter written June %, ls49. In tn,
Spring OF lS49. you got my letter, which
was written two months after the Spring O
Is49 You had better try that over again
II don't fit together well. Ii spOls fctior
very much TO conlouDd dates and narrat,
im2ossihilities. You were discharged, a
you say, in July. ls4s, end you and you
brother both returned home in August, IS4S
as I infer from your fathers first letter, here
with published. The letter of Pennington
e. Cowen, a part of which You publish
shows the gross calumny in your ,ircrln
TO have been utterly false, and proves pre-
cisely what asserted in my csrd. viz: ths
my fathers name was mentioned in connec
sion with informoiion received by us tror
him - the former attorney of the Charles
wortbs, and with whom we had in that sens
aiene Hadvised" before bringing suit. Yo
now plainly charge, what in your ,eircul'