The Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1863-1886, 1864-05-05
For the Lancaster Gazette.

very detective This necessitates the
use ofplainer language than is agreea-
bic to my taste, p must not how
ever shrink, when duty bids me pro-
ceed, OF course ] was not surprised |
to find my plain statements of fact
characterised as cvituperation," and
.sthe base and vulgar belchings of the
boor." These are some ofthe "scintil-
fati0ns Of genius'' which do not prove
my opponents "inabili% No play the
blaclsguard in polite and refined lan,
guasen- but the contrary. ! give him
full credit for his capabilities in this
direction, and will not charge him
with ebutchering the Kings English, =
when he writes It Kings English. f
With me this is not a literary contest,
but a question Of fact-of truth-of
honesty. | have charged Harris with
saying that the soldiers of the 17th
Regiment ought to be hung. This
Harris denied; ! proved it by the
sworn testimony of William Fetters.
How does he treat this tcstimony?-
He first says It does not imputc to him
the same language that ! charged
him with usingl Suppose the words
were varied little, were they not of
1.-THE same import? Did they not sus-
tain the charge? Come, Harris, this
is too small hole for a man of your
dimensions to get through! Again,
Harris says, my conversation with
| Fettcrs was brief" What if it was
Does it require an elaborate conver-
sation in which to assert thata set OF
soldiers ought to be hung? Again,
Harris claims that he mentioned NO
namesl Who says he did? This is a
dodge. But he says Fetters draws
an unwarrantcd conclusion, care
nothing for conclusions drawn. Ol
these the public will judge. ] appeal
1.-THE statement made by Petters, and
TO Harris treatment Of lit, aud nothing
moro is needed to satisfy reasonable
men that Harris vented his spitcfu
, feelings against tho soldiers in the Ian
guagc alleged, and is now trying t.
i escape the responsibility by tho mos
,, contemptible shuffling, | do not wisl
: to add to his Affections unnecessarily
for doubt not his cowardly spiri
= shuddcrs at the thought of his folly
: but his last, carefully worded state
= mcnt, is too prcposterous to pass with
> out exposure.
lie says; 81 deny most solcmnly
"" that what | said had reference to th
: regiment as a body, or, indeed, to an,
. but such as participated in the afliay.
y Now look at this; does it not prov
that something rdS said on that occa
! sion in condemnation of the soldiers
= ! Else why seek to restrict it to such a
u participated in the affray2 And VIII
= charged him with speaking Of the reg
!, iment as body, or of any others tha
: those who engaged in the affray 2
- Such quibbling only Injuries the caus
II it seeks to defend, and proves its autl
:, - or destitute alike of veracity and coul
~ age. But he continues "And furtl
- er, what l did say was in tho bell
y that George See was killed, and as ha
- been reported, was innocent of tt
e blood of Little and Michaels. Wori
- foundering than ever! Harris hel
20 convicts himself of base falschood,-
- He WAS not in town when the affra
= occurred, and William Fctters was Il
. first man that reached the lnfirmai
- ~ with the intelligence Of the murder
:, two soldiers by the Sees, and that Ge
~ Sec had been caught and killed in +
~ taHiation. The report Of the innocen
~ of George Sec had not yet gone fort
~ 30 Harris had heard not one breath of
~ The assertion that he had is not on
=. / false, but absurd. 1t carries ,alol
~ with it its own rcfutation, and fix
10 upon Harris the brand Of untruthfr
GO ness SO plainly that deeper infan
pa may not be reached, He has admit
~ that his first knowledge ofthe murd
"O was obtained from William Fette
>, and that he believed George See W
I" dead, and tits well known that Geor
ri was thought the guilty man until 10
~ after, this time. This statement tn
ei9' hc believed George innocent, as h h