The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1863-08-12

daughter with the crime OF framing 0 willful
faIsehood, or an Intentional Misrepresentation.
belieye they have stated what they consid-
cred the purport or meaning Of the expires
sions made on the occasion reieTed TO; but
even in this thew have been mistaken, my
language Was plain and OF such unequivioal
import that 'be who wsy read and the way
laring man though iool need not nor should
have erred thereia." / here give you the
language used by me on the occasion, aocor-
ding TO my recollection; and do, under the
solemnity Of oath as setforth 10 the following
affidavitt.
The State Of Ohio Harrison County, $.
Before me j. N. Crowl--a Notary Public
in and for said county, personally appeared
X. II. Simmons and makes oath to the iol
lowing statement That on or about the
9th day Of July 1868, conversation took
place between him, R. 81. Simmons, and Mrs
Mary Green in the presence o her two
Sarah Myers and Mary j.
Green in the house Of Mrs. Mary Green ol
Franklin, in which place and at which time,
be, R. Il. Simmons, made use OF the. follow
ing language, to wit That he would like
to see his war ended and for his part, he was
not particular bywhat means or instrumental
ity il was brought to close, so that it resul
ted 10 an honorable and permanent peace.
tSigned) II Fl. SIMMONS.
Sworn and SUBSIDIZED before me this lst
day Of Aug. A. D. 1858.
(Seal) Witness my hand and Notary seal
OF office. j. N. CRowL, Notary Public.
Now any man Of common sense can see,
easily, how the misunderstanding has occur.
red. Mrs. Green has mistaken my indiffer>
epce as to the instrumentality employed, for
indifference as TO the results. While was
anxious to secure peace and Union on an
honorable and permanent basis-I was not
particular about the means employed to se-
cure this glorious result. The words set
forth in the foregoing affidavit are the words
made use Of by me on the occasion referred to,
and these words have been 'reqoently made
use Of by me when in conversation "about
the war" with individuals, who were capa
Bile of comprehendng the meaning Of plain,
simple language-without ever entertaining
a single fear OF being charged with the crime
preferred against me in the eartul array OF
afiidavits which appears in the Republican OF
July goth. In these affidavits am made to
say two things "whippea and gained" In
the frs, am mad to say, whipped or gain
ed" in the other two I am made to say
"ga,ned." Now, if / said "whipped" l did
not say gained" and il said "gained" d id
not say "whipped" Now which did | say
whipped or gained". Can conclude from
these afidavits what did say! Remember
they do not affirm that said both whip
ped and gained" but whipped or gained"
Why il l said whipped or gained' did they
not all affirm this? and if according to the
other two, only said gained. and not
"whipped or gained" why should there be a
difference IN the affidavils? Is 1t because
there was difference in the understanding
of the language by the different individuals
who have made their affidavits? These
three persons were all present, at the time,
and participated in the conve rsatioD and OF
course heard the words used by me, and il
their recollection be so detective as not to
agree as to the language made use Of by me;
is this not strong presumptive evidence, that
there may have been misunderstanding of
the whole thing on their part. And if so,
does this not give The widest range for the
suspicion that there is "somethngsrotten In
Denmark" But forbear on this point
The whole thing looks bad and ugly. sub
init it to the candid judgement OF an intelli-
gent and generous public. But cir, you seem
to exult over these conflicting atfidavits, and
troll them as sweet morsel under your
tongue" and send greeting to your numer
Gus readers chat the "Butternut candidate
for the legislature is cer rtainly getting him
elfinto tight place, and If not very careful
will soon be compelled to surrender as did
certain other Vallardighamers recently up In
Columbiaha County" You say "he author
zed the Editor OF the Sentinel to brand the
charge ,oe made against him as a falsshood,
manufactured cut Of whole cloth" Did you
make the charge sir? Itlibught it was Mrs.
Green, through her dutifnl and delectable
nephew, Mr.. Jehn Thompson, who, made
the charge, and that you only gave publici-
ty to it upon his authority. Now sir If
you have had any participation in this little
chivalrous conduct, you might have kept me
in blissful ignorance Of the fact; for | should
not have required you to criminate yourself.
But "murder will out" and il you and Mr..
Thompson & Co., have lent your influence
to so base purpose, as that of slandering an
innocent man, through the columns Of the
Republican, and Of extorting unwilling and
conflicting affidavits from three innocent and
harmless and inoffensive females, to bolster
up your rotten cause, and sustain your vile
charges--if this be so; then indeed, ,ee say it
is we'll for all the parties 10 this disgraceful
proceeding; that you thus implicate yourself
for while it will partially relieve those who
consented 10 become the passive tools OF in
dividious partizans, from the odium which
must attach to such conduct; it may at the
same time, prove real benefit 10 the more
prominent actors in this petty drama--for
we are told that "open confession 10 good
fos the soul" 80 Mr.. Hatton, you will, by
your unintentional confession Of completely
in this little affair, find yourself IN q
slight place" fyou do not be little eau
tious. Further you say 1--WE learn that DR..
Simmons visited Mrs. Green the 23d inst.
after the issue Of our last paper "There be
ing no man present" and first by persuasion
aud afterwards by threats, tried TO get her to
sign an instrument OF writing, and give her
consent to its publication, denying that he
(Simmons) had ever used the language in
her presence, but lie failed. Mrs. Green
told him to his face that he did say what
bad been charged against him" Yes, | CALI
ed on Mrs. Green after the issue Of your last
paper, and although tbere was no man
present" but myself-there was five ladies
present Mrs. Green her two daugtors, and
two other ladies, (strangers to me) who were
witnesses to what occurred on that occasion;
one Of whom an elderly lady, advised Mrs:
Green to acknowledge and correct her mis-
take, after hearing the two daughters declare
to their mother-Mrs. Green that had not
made use of the word whipped" in her
house on that occasion referred to; and that
they did rot believe that she had ever told
any person that did; the stat ement of Mr..
Thompson to the contrary Notwithstanding.