The Jeffersonian Democrat. [volume] (Chardon, Ohio) 1854-1865, 1861-12-27
For the Jefersonian Democrat.
Mr.. Ferriss' Reply to Mr.. Kent.

about certain communication Of mine,
which they inaogiRe has done them "great
injustice" | would ask bv what authority
they seize upon every obnoxious epithet
in said communication, aGd apply i. TO
themselves. There is not one word Of
allusion in that article to the party that
makes such a squirming, iancying them.
Setves, all the while, the individuals aimed
at by the writer. The application OF that
communication 10 themselves is their own
gratuitous act. Three different parties
were knoWB 10 visit my orchard lasl fall,
and undoubtedly several came and went
without being observed. And l am now
in weekly expectation Of finding myself
pitched into" by the latter, for some
great injustice" done them in that same
Objectionable article. .... .....
Some little accoun. Of the proceedings
OF one party was given in the communi-
cation that called out Mr.. Kent, who has
revealed second that might forever have
remained unknown to community, had not
he, IN the excess OF his verdancy, blabbed
it, The party alluded to by myself con
sisted OF eight persons, as any one can see
by referring TO my article Mr.. Kents,
according TO himself, numbered ten. He
must be an adept in arithmetic to make
8 and 10 identical. His sagacity, too,
is wonderfully aslute. He has identified
his company without one personal allu
sion, without any personal name. place of
residence or definite time. And now,
since be has made the affair public, and,
in order to exculpate himself and associ-
ates from censure, has garbled and falsi.
fed the whole matter, propose giving
my version.
The word "thieves." that be so ,ri-
umphan.ly starts Off with, as being one OF
the hard epithe,s applied by me to his
party, is not once found in my commun,
cation ; but, presuming that he is better
acquainted with the proclivties OF himself
and companions, shall not quarrel with
him about the application Of that term. -
And, in regard to personal shafts of vul-
garism," | only ask comparison of his
article in the Jc8ersonion Democrat of
Dec. 18th inst, with mine OF the 9th OF
last November.
AS they "were naturally disposed 10
ramhle about" they were, doubtless, very
NATURALLY disposed" 10 think that all the
surrounding cornfelds, meadows, pastures
and orchards belonged TO their worthy
Landlord, although his hotel is situated
on the top of the Mountain abou, one hun.
dred feet above even my chestnut orchard,
and no gate or bars from that direction
leading into it. Very natural conclusion
for men that have followed farming all
their life time
Mr.. X. says: "Not feeling inclined 10
have any trouble with the man, we offered
him the nuts, (of which but one had. as
yet, been eaten." &c) Now, one of the
young men iDsullingly offered me FIVE or
six ches'nuts, saying, "These are all !
have, and l have eaten but one," and
added, you ought TO think yourself well
dealt by, TO have your chestnuts gathered
so cheap" Mr. X. makes the above
statement, quoted from his article, and it
contains about 100 per cent. of falsehooG,
and that is as near the truth as he has ap-
proYimaied in his communication. An.
other of the party says to me, "Have not
you got an acorn orchard too? =? you seem
TO have all kinds of fruit" AT length the
decade formed into solid phalarx, and,
while eating chestnuts and throwing
about the shucks, raised general burst
OF indignant scof at me, for presuming TO
question the propriety of what they had
done. | remarked TO them tnat, however
lightly they might treat the affair, there is
law in the State of Ohio, declaring such
acts larceny.
One of this company,s so disirclined "to
have any trouble with the man," very
coolly demanded, "What are you going to
do about it ?" replied, 81 intend to
leave it TO DR.. Nichols, of Chardon, or
some other diSinterested man." Some
one said. "He is too far off; we'll leave it
TO the Landlord" l consented. The
Landlord declined, (not because it was
$50 small matter" we'll leave that 10
him. II Mr.. X. had abstracled three
cent piece from the Landlords change
box, presume he would cali ii "smaIl
matter" and it would be, smaller even
than the value Of the chestnuts, and quite
as small, TOO, in point of moral turpilrde.
hO LI"HCioiuI aitCi uCOllulu5 " ucClut,
insisted that should make proposal. In
the request that | should propose the con-
ditions of adjustment, one OF the party
joined; at length, another or two. AT
their request, finally named a dollar,
saving. "If you feel disposed 10 pay that,
it shall end the difficulty" And here let
me say, that dollar was not the price OF "a
pint and a haif' OF chestnuls, but the
price of their unmeasured abuse, and
cheaper than l will ever lake The same
amount again. Had they, at the COM
mencement, mads single apology, or ex-
pressed one regret, and acted the part Of
gentlemen, they would have been excused,
and the. matter all passed off without any
unpleasantness. ...
Tho following sentence, "We then left it
to the decision OF the owner, upon his prom,
ising to leave as soon as paid" found over
the signature of tho Bainbrdge corrospon,
dent. in the JcfsrsOaidn Democrat OF Dec
18Th inst, l send back into the teeth of E.
K. Kent, as q mean. deliberate he, such as
no one but contemplate puppy would use
and one that ;he craven-hearted poltroon
dare not repeat to my face. ..'
! have no doubt he "felt bad over" the
loss of his part of the dollar 1.-TWO Dimes
and that, together with the "one" said chest.
nut eaten before break fast made him