M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1859-04-21
For tho MeArthur Democrat.

Mr.. ALEX. PEARoE: Mr.. VIM. Il. |
Cox, in his explanatory article in your
paper of last week, has used Mr.. Da.
vid Jones name in connection with
mineih way that Justice to MIR. Jones
REQUIRES that should make the follow
ing candid statement. All that did
in the matter alluded to by aim, was
done without the knowledge of Mr..
Jones, or any participation in it ON his
part in any way. have no recollec.
ton of mentioning it in Mr.. Jones'
presence, and am very certain he ney.
er, in my presence, used the express
.sions Mr.. Cox attributes to him to-wit;
"That's tho way wen hx them," or
"that's the way we'll get revenge" or
any other words that would admit Of
"a like construction. | felt myself per.
iectly iustiiable nall | didin the mat
ter. 1t was a personal thing between
Mr.. Bingham and myself; politics had
nothing to do with it. 1t was an easy
thing done. | had no "help" to do it
| never used language in reference to
the matter that could lead any person
to suppose had "help." Nothing
was said by me about Republicans or
Democrats in conversing about the
matter at any time.
My long acquaintance with Mr..
Jones warrants me in saying, that MIR.
W. II. Cox is mistaken in what he has
said about him, or has wilfully misrep-
resented him. T. A. MARTIN.
can, without hesitation, say have
no recollection that Mr.. T. A. Martin
ever mentioned, in my presence, the
matter referred to by Mr.. w. Il. Cox;
and am positive when say that Mr..
Jones never used the language in ref
erence to it that Mr.. Cox says he did,
in my presence, at any time, or any
other language that could he construed
into an approval Of the acts or feelings
attributed to him by Mr.. W. Il. Cox.
My long acquaintance with Mr..
Jones justifes Inc in saying, that Mr..
Cox is mistaken, and has misrepre'
sented him in his explanatory article.
j. X. WILL.
The above arc two very remarkable
statements. First, Mr.. Martin takes
all the burden upon himself AMI re
lieves Mr.. Jones from any participa,
ton in the affair. Secondly, Mr.
Martin don't recolleot Of mentioning
tin Mr.. Jones' presence, and thirdly,
is positiUs that Jones never used the
expressions, in words Or substance, at
tributed to him by Mr.. Cox. How
does it happen that Martin is short o
memory as to Jones' presence and ye
positive that he never made the re-
marks ! The same question nigh
be asked with reference to Mr.. Will's
statement. He does not recollect thai
the subject was ever mentioned by Mr..
Martin in his presence, and yet is
! positive that Jones, when the subject
was talked of, did not make use ofcer
tain expressions Or their substance
Tic truth is, we presume, that, as Mr.
W. does not recollect that the subject
was mentioned, lie has also forgotten
what was said by Martin, Jones, ol
anybody else.
This is a reasonable conclusion.-
The reader will notice the similarity
of language in the two statements
They are written by tho same hand--
that hand, we presume, was the "Nay
igator's." No doubt the Sgners were
glad to get rid of him by putting theiI
names to his cut-and dried and self
com plimentary statements.
David Jones hopes we will "takc
back the abusive language" Has ht
ever "taken back" the unjust charges
and insinuations made against us o.
Does he ask for an act of justice which
he himself will not grant3 But, we
shall not be as mean as Jones, and
will acquit him OF aiding in the matter
referred to.