Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-09-28
me MorEan4ovvn Honttor-GeneraI
nnz.I-.E


tn. norEanao1yn Monttor-GensrAl
kramer, and Ourselves.
We adSet4ed the other dEy to the eours'
ofIhe Norgaatown Naaitor, q eOPPerhsal
paper edited By son of Senater Willty's
asa in doing so re alluded especially Z
ils strange v;TuIenee towards not ealy III
principles pEofessed By the father Of tb'
editor, bat also towards = certain gentle
man Who At the special request Of the sdi
,or himself befriended Senator Wiley in hi
late election We refer to Gen Kramer
IN. of the membe.zOf the legislature from
MOuougaIia county. In reply 70 rs the
editor Of the RonisoT states that our Asser-
ton tba, he ..bssouEht Gen. Kramer met
TO let his fatber be beaten" is - malicious
fslseLood, = for which either the General OF
ourselves are responsible, and he also ehai-
leDges any quotauous from his letter to
that gen;iemau in Jindieation Of his charge
of ..falseheod.n Hiseo words are a.
foIiows:
We have simply 20 affirm in reference %
the above assertion, that Il il malicious
falsehood. of which either Arcby Campbell
or Lee Roy Kramer Is the malicious author (;
and as the letter IN question was private
one, re n0rg authorize and demand Office Roy
Kramer 10 give psblicity 70 any portion Of
il that will sustain such an assertion, or
otherwise remain before the public, as We
affirm him to be, man unworthy char
acter for yeracity.
In response to this authorization aud
"dsmaud" of the editor of the Monitor,
Gen. Kramer has put IN our hands letter
dated MOrgantown, July 18th, 1868. ltisa
document of nearly four pages of letter pa
per in length, and is mainly occupied with
iterations and relterstions that the editors
father is in no wise responsible for what
appears in the Monitor. The conclusion of
the letter is the essential point as between
the eIitOr and ourselves aud Gen. Kramer,
and it is as follows:
{" It is perhaps presunPtions in to ask
of you a favor /, yet, IN e0Rstderati0g Of
yoWr portion. afOrdiug you an opportunity
Of e0rreeting this matter, and convinced,
that Father is entirely irresponsible in the
case, thrust that you t0it not GLEoW Il TO affect
his i1tereSLs, aud thus make me instrument
tai for any injury that it may do him.
Very respectfully,
The editor of the Monitor may have for
gotten that he had ever written such q
paragraph as the above to Gen. Kramer
1t is charitable at least to suppose that il
had slipped his memory. Or he may have
supposed that the General had thrown his
letter carelessly to one side, and that there
fore, in answer to hIs challenge, it could
not be produced and quoted from. But
now that it is produced '.see how plain
tale puts the fellow down."
We do not wonder that the editor fe
FESTIVE under the charge that he had "be
sought" Gen. Kramer "not to let his fatht
be beaten" he could not help realizin
that the community would hold his subse
quent virulent abuse of Gen. Kramer TO /
u very mean and disgraceful requitat &c
the "favor" crayed and received al b
hands by the editor. The editor no.
repays that flavor" by affirming that tn
gentleman from whom he sought aud re
oeived it is "a man unworthy characte
for veracity." Aud yet, strange to say, tbs
identical gentleman was no later than Ii
18th of July last, singled out as the man {
all others who, ''ia consideration Of hisPOsi
ton, could prevent the EDITORS own char
acter aud standing from iujuring, in th
eyes of the Legislature, his fathers pros
poets. Mr.. Bunker, the Senator, was no
appealed TO. Neither was Mr.. Tough, tn
other delegate. But Gen. Kramer was
and why2 "In consideration of his posi-
ton" Aud yet the fellow has now til
meauuess to eat his own fattery and pre-
nounce the man whom he had appealed I
for "favOr'' in time of family extremity
ia man unworthy character for yeraC
ity." Shame on such shameless meannes.
1t seems now that the editor was stmpl
resOrting to trick to prop up the endar
gered fortunes of his household, aud thi
we was entirely willing TO make use of
man whom he held in uttercontempt, eve
to the extent OF employing criuging IA
terry, if in doing so he could advance Il
influence of his family name.
But as If his malice towards the ma
frem whom he had asked u "favor'i had NJ
been fully grati6ed, he continues the wOl
of defamation in a second article in Il
same number of the paper from which '
quote. BE asserts that We have taken !
the oudgels in General Kramer's beha
because that gentleman twas very diligei
in an attempt to elevate him (the Iatell
gsnesr mau) to Senatorial seat" No
mark chow plain tale puts this fellO
down. second time. General Kram,
did not vote for s.the Latsliigeaeer mani. fl
a Senatorial seat-did NO. advocate hi