Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1864-04-29

1--WE issue this slip to-day, not for the purpose
of replying to the Infamous articles of Flaugher
and Keeler, but because we have a few adyer-
tisements which the advertisers wish published.
The efforts of this brace of ngpuppies to rid
their party of the infamv attached to the break
ing into our office, viii fail After threatening
this work for three years and over, and now talk
about somebody else doing il, is simple non
sense. The men who signed the extra thrown
out last Saturday by the JOURNAL, if they knew
what they were signing, knew they were sign
ing falsehood There is not one of them who
dares go before a Magistrate and swear to what
he signed. Knaves invented the idea-fools
NAV swallow it. Flaugher and Keeler's esti-
mates of damage show their disposition to wrong
a rival in business. They both lie and they
know it. We have heretofore given Flaugher
some credit for honesty; but in this matter he
mas shown himselfto be part knave-part fool
We have heretofore published Keller as liar
thief and coward; and we here reiterate it. He
or any other man, who intinates that we or any
part of the Democratic party, had ANYTHING to
do with the destruction of our material, is a
cOwardly liar and thief: and if we had type
sufficient could make this so plain that the
honest men of their party who denounce it,
could see that what we say is true. Is it likely
that a man who had property worth SO, 600
would go to work and destroy $500 worth of it
to avoid the payment of such debt as they say
we owe? This is what is insinuated. We dare
any responsible man to say that we knew any
thing about the matter until after it was DONE
If we ever get our paper started again, we will
show up these scoundrels For the present we
have not type enough. Keeler, like frighten-
ed puppy, guards his office at night. We can
tell him if the Democrats ever make an attack
upon his Office it will be done like men-in
daylight-and if it is attempted the work viii
be done. We want to see nothing of the kind.
We have ever been a aw-abiding man, and we
think we always viii be: but where there is no
law, sometimes self-protectiOn requires resort
TO other means. Do these scOundrels think il
not enough to destroy man 5 property without,
in a cOwardly manner, attacking his character?
1t is piling infamy little higher upon infamy
than we ever expected even a black republican
would do. The Democratic meeting to-mor
row viii probably speak TO the scOundrels in
plain terms
The above was issued in an extra from the
Messenger office on Saturday last but dated the
day previous. We reproduce it in the JOURNAL
as corroboratng evidence as to one of the per-
sons who committed the ;'outrage'' on that Of
fee. We think that no man, whatever his pol
itics, who viii candidly and impartially read
the above, can come to any other conclusion
than that the Messenger office was ''mobbed'
by person or persons not members of the In
ion party. The wholesale charge that the act
was committed by Union men-and persistently
insisted in-when there is no proof, or even
shadow of suspicion against a single individual
in the Union ranks, is of itself sufficient ev-
idence, without absolute proof, that some one
else did the deed. \ man, that accuses every
one who differs with him, of being liars, thieves
fools, knaves, towards, scoundrels, puppies
&c.,-when those to whom these epithets are
applied comprise part of the most honorable
and prominent citizens of Fremont,-is himself
capable of committing any other act, however
vile or low
We have no knowledge who entered Beans
office and destroyed his press and type. We
have our suspicious, but suspicious are not ev-
idence; hence, we charge no one with being the
guilty persons. But our faith is firm that no
Union man or men did it. In the above article
Bean intimates that there are suspicious that he
is the man, and adds: lis it likely that a man
who had property worth SO, 600 would go to
work and destroy $500 worth of it to avoid the
payment of such debt as they say we owe?7
Likely not. But we have heard some mali
cious persons put the question in this shape
Suppose editor printing Office was mort
gagged for 81, ,2O0 and a notice of foreclosure had
been served upon him, and that he knew that
at forced sale the office would not bring enough
to pay off the mortgage, and that he knew the
office would certainly sell, and that he thereby
would lose it, would he not, (if he wasn't any
more honest than some men that are not yet in
the penitentiary,) under these circumstances,
if he thought he could make his party believe
that the "abolitionists'' did it, and thereby in
duee it to purchase him another office,-do it
HIMSELF" We do not suppose any thing about
it. We do not know anything about it more
than has been published, and therefore, as we
have before stated, charge no one with being
the guilty persons.
One more word, and we are done. Bean says
the Office was worth $1,000 We happen to
know that a few months since while Bean was
in the army, agentleman was here from Indiana
to buy it. He was urged to take
it at 81, S0O but declined to give more than
81, 300 Hence the bargain fell through This
we had from his own lips So that it is all
''moonshine' about the office being worth S.
BOO.