The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1859-11-02
For the /" Spirit. I"
County Board Of School Examines
Wheeler's Charges Defence, 60, &c
TO THE PUBLIC.

editor pro tenn. inserted q communica-
tion of his own, containing heavy charges
against the Board of County School Ex.
aminers, signed Teacher and dated
Country September 25th, 1852"
This, we say, amounts to a categorical
assertion in the indicative mood and pres.
eut tense that the author then resided in
the country and not in the printing Office.
Was it true? Was it candid? Was it hon.
est? We replied to it as might have been
expected knowing the disingenuous spirit
of the author. We very truly attributed
this production to Mr.. Wheeler's "private
griefs." In second effort he roundly
asserts that we charged him to be one of
'the rejected" Not for moment. We
never wrote one syllable from which any
such inference could be drawn. 1t is false
to Mr.. Wheeler's own knowledge. We
saw through his mask from the beginning.
We we'll knew that his production origi-
mated in his burning thirst for vengeance
against Mr.. Moore, q wiser, worthier
and better man than himself, and conse
quent fury against the Board for accept
ing Mr.. Moore's assistance for few
hours at the time Of the funeral.
An occurrence altogether similar took
place during Mr.. Wheeler's term as mem.
ber of the Board, except that there was
no death, no extreme necessity or inevita.
BILE accident; yet Mr. Wheeler assisted in
the examination of the papers received
from the hands of our friend with pIa.
cid countenance and made no outcry and
no appeal to the public!!l
Mr.. Wheeler objects to our omission to
take an official oath. We incline to the
opinion that this omission is erroneous
Yet in this we not only followed judicial
construction, but we followed in the foot
steps of our INDUSTRIOUS PREDECESSOR I"
William Wheeler. If judicial decision is
an excuse for him, is it not also an ex.
cuse for us? OIL! are we not unfortunate
in having an antagonist artful, uncandid
and altogether inscriptions? 81.
No three men in the county read the
pretended extracts from the performances
of candidates in his last communication
with more fixed astonishment than the
subscribers. We accordingly addressed
him the following note:
"Woodsield, October "a, 1859.
Mr. William Wheeler, Sir: Your COM
munication over the signature of Teach.
err" in the last Esprit" treats of mat.
ters demanding strict investigation. We
therefore request you to give us the names
of the candidates, who as you affirm, re-
ceived certificates so unworthily, the date
of the certificates, the names of the Elk.
aminers, who subscribed them and exhibit
the original exercises. We say original
for obvious reasons which you well un.
derstand. r..
We make the same demand as to the
candidate, whom as you say we rejected,
Who is he? What is his name? When
did he stand his examination2 And the
names of the Examiners, who rejected him.
Also exhibit his original exercises. We
make the same demand as to the teacher
who was treated so harshly in receiving
short certificate of four months. Who
is he? WHAT'S his name? What is the
date of his certificate? And who sigded
it? And also exhibit his original exercise
You have taken q position in which the
assertion of an anonymous writer without
the documents will not answer. You
must be aware of the inference which will
be drawn from your refusal to comply with
this request. And further what part oi
the communication of "One of the Board, y
contains the following "small business fol
three of them to attend an examinationf'
if no such language can be found in that
article, what right had you to assert tha,
we so consider it and mark it with quota
tion marks as coming from us. We are &c
EDWARD ARcHBoLD,
VIM. p. RICHARDSON,
JAMES SMITH.
To the last question Mr.. Wheeler made
no response. 1t may be regarded as 9
flower of rhetoric introduced on the princi
pie which he understands and practices SC
we'll "tErow plenty of calumny and some
of it will stick" ~ e &
As the names of the candidates, who
received certificates so unworthily he gave
us Robert B. Fogle and William Fogle
date of their certificates 7th November
1851, and Isaac Dougherty since thai
time. As the rsyected candidate he gave
the name of Robert l.. Morris time o
rejection late in 1858. The candidat,
aggsieved by short certificate he assert
ed was James NJ. Hurley. He affirmed
that he, Wheeler, was in Woods6eld, thre.
days, in January last and examined th,
performances by lsaue of Mr.. John Moore
then Clerk of the Board. That they were
in Daniel Norfolk's room at Davis tavern
He further asserted that the Messieurl
Fogles had received certificates since tha
time. This last assertion is true for tn,
Fogles who are very young men, hav'
made gratifying improvements since No
vember 1851. As to Mr.. Isaac Dough
erty he produced no performances and ou1
own researches have not enabled us tt
end any. As to Robert L. Morris hi
assertion was utterly false and groundless
Mr., Morris never was rejected. Mr.