Litchfield enquirer., 1858-12-30

FOR THE ENQUIRER. A REPLICATION TO THE CARD OF EDWIN M
 KELLOGG.
 MR EDITOR When first perused the pronuacia- n'ento of E. M Kellogg. of Warren, which appeared bemoaning the result of the suit, which he had pre- viously brought against me, did not deem it of sufficient importance to myself or to the public, to justify reply. was we'll aware, that generally, in this County, the circumstances attending the far famed tar and feather" case were too we'll under stood, to render necessary rofutation of the mis- representations which fill his waings to the Peo- pie of the State of Connecticut ;'' and have no doubt but the vndictive insolence with which his proclamation is filed has wrought for him suffi- cent condemnation, where himself and the facts are known But since he has given so public character to his communication and since it is so widely commented on by the Press both in this and other States, desire that no injustice should be done to public sentiment with regard to this mat ter, induces me to briefly review the causes which have produced the efea indicated by the melancholy vindictiveness of MT. Kelogg's Card. To follow and refute all the misrepresentations made by him. would be an irksome and odious task. But there are some radical miscellaneous in his communica- tion, which should be met in order that an impar- tal view can be taken of the history of his preten dsd desolations.
 The gist of Mr. Kelogg's Lamentations is that on the 18th day of January, A. D. 1856, he being then Justice of the Peace in the town of Warren, was in the town of Kent, engaged in trying viola tion of the Prohbitory Law, and that while there, he was taken, tarred and feathered, and ridden on a rail, by some dozen persons and the scene wit messed by some three hundred persons, and that not one of them offered to protect him, and that he has since, by repeated applications, failed to obtain such satisfaction as he desiled in the Courts of the County; and therefore,, crowds his destiny upon ' the People of Connecticut and seeks to ascer- tain why he was thus treated. The reasons are ob. -yious, as will appear. In October, 1855, William P. Ellwyn, respected man, Out of limited pecun- lary means) came to East Kent, and engaged in the legitimate business of keeping small grocery and few workmen boarders In part, at the solcita- tion of such boardcrs, and the necessities arising from the support of an infrm father, he purchased and brought to his residence small quantity of spurious liquors, which was used agreeably to the pfOylSlOnS OI the Otatute. III DeCeinUeT Oi satu year, one Harmon Beeman, resident in Kent, ta- king advantage of Ellwyn's ignorance of the char acter and responsibility of his customers, became Ellwyns debtor for certain articles from his groce ", amounting to some seven or eight dollars. This Beeman dishonorably refused to pay the debt, and also fraudulently and clandestinely concealed the property which had been attached by Ellwyn to se- cure said demand. This Beeman, to retaliate on Elwyn went to some of the Kent authorities to make complaint against Eilwyn for selling liquor to this same Baasan. The magistrate first applied to, was William Treat, the individual whom Presi- den Buchanan has recently rescued from the mali cious fangs of MT. Kellogg and his eongial compan ions. He, Creat,) knowing the character of Ell wyn, and despising the cowardly motives of Bee man, refused te issue complaint, unless a more reliable person should make the complaint. MT. John L. Stuart. gentleman whose responsibility and influence require no comment, and who was