American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1859-12-22

- w S-P Nno toho"hb Pe6tePn
from the Ohio Eagle Of last week. imms-
diatsly following which is the rejected
commanlcaiion."
We have received communication from
Mayor Fritter, author Of the article signed
'DsmOcrat' which appeared last week
It's great length. iDdecorous language and
linsinuations against The Democratic or.
Ranization Of this county and its members
is the reason offered for its rejection, The
deposition papers would be the most ap.
lpropriats channel for such production.
For The Lancaster GsEeise.
see. BY the last Eagle, that Mr.. RoLlSD
one Of thu editors Of that paper. has taken
advantage of bis editorial position to reply
to my communication Of last week, and re.
peats what be had published the week be.
fore. .that at the late primary election
ticket was run for Obs" Ny object in
answering was 10 remove false impress
sion created in this community by your
article, and having beon one. favorable to
that ticket, l supposed you would, at
once correct yourself: as / have always
deemed il the duty of public journal, es-
lpseiailyG a Democratic one. to publish against
Democrats. facts only, and not 10 make at
tacks upon Democrats, which are not
warranted by facts, and which cannot be
sustained BY the truth.
!. Since 6ou have repested your charge,
and produced your proofs, thereof, l p,o.
pose to sllude to some facts connected with
the history Of this matter, which l know
wss knOWn 10 you, when you published
your frat article:
Three Of the men put on the 6rst
ticket, were such strong anti OLDs. and SC
favorable 70 MARTIN. that they we're placed
upon tie MARTIN ticket, $50 called, The
, other three were McVEIeH, SrrNoHooMI
and W. L, RIoDI l heard McVnGu
/. tell you on election dsy, that be was mo-
pledged for 0LDs, nor mad be ever beer
asked. nor had be spoken TO oLDs for somt
4 three or four months. STIKcHcoMB, haC
1 sHid in your presence in the Ohio Eagle
Office. "lhat be preferred MARTIN to any
other man in the district, il MARTIN, wa
4 favorable to DOUGLAS nomination for thi
I Presidency in 1860; and that MARrIE hal
/. repeatedly in conversation with him. sat
!, if6ed him Of the fact. thsthe wss Doua
q LAS man." And the proposition was the
n made 10 STiNcHcoMB aud PLour, "ihsl
r MsVEIou's name were takvn off the tick
n ct. and that Of NEWTON ScnLEicH place
on in its stead, that the ticket would the
be satisfactory. and that no Opposition
j ticket would be gotten up" This howev
4 er was refused.
D ] am told by The delegates on that flick
Q ct. themselves, that the only expression
/. made by any of.be delegates, was ths
: they we're for MARTIN. when satisfied iha
] be was what his friends Represented bin
Q to be. a 0oUGLAs man. know that thi
: was repeatedly said by both STINcHcoMI
: and McVEIou. but they were both in ia
i vor Of instructions for DOUGLAS. and ibi
j. was their sin. for which you take upo
yourself, with all the facts before reierrs,
10. staring you in the lace. to publish then
a as for oLDs, and against MARTIN. TIL
II friends Of the ticket 6rst got up, represent
a ed, oil day, to ,he'reverse of the fact wbicl
you have published. with probably one ex
ception, to whom you alude, when yo
say, 1--WE know that some Of the support
ers Of this ticket. declared it to be 70
!. Obs"
!. Now let US see, with ell these fact
r kaoi0s 10 you. upon what kind Of evidence
/. you base your whole article, and your rep
|, etition OF it. You allude, to but two sim
D pie facts. in proof of your statements -
First, the one above quoted. ''that yo'
: knew some Of the supporters Of this ti,ke
declared il was Tor OLps;" the second is
. tina. GEoRoE CRAwToRD. (old's clerk
J. worked for it. and this 10 all. Now. as
Q have before said your own conduct. an
P your own articles show that you knew bel
! ter, so far as these were concerned, an
: that you had heard two Of the others
MoVeigh aud Slinchcomb.) declare 1
the contrary; and yet upon such state Q
facts. you publish tho kind ofan artiCl
! you did. 10 induce the Democracy Of thi
}, county to believe that you were making
truthful statement.
: The next thing in this controversy
that the three placed there as the friend
d OF MARTIN, I mean the Hon. NEwro
SoHlEicH, DAVIS and LYNCH, were not Z
Iected with the understanding that tho
were DouoLAs men. / only have 10 sp
peal to the voters. TO bear me out 10 thi'
that il on election day they were not reE
. resented BY their friends as DoueLAs mer
q as favorable to DouoLAs, as the men o
n The other ticket. This was done publ icl
rs all day, and DR.. DAVIS was frequently cal
IL A.. C.. "A 4 a