The Greene County Republican. [volume] (Waynesburg, Pa.) 185?-1867, 1867-06-26
From the Washington Reporter.
MONTGOMERY VS., FOGLER.


MGssRs. EDlroKs when Mr.. Mont
gomery concluded to assal the recently
published confession of Robert Fogler,
If he had chosen to treat it as Foglers
own production, written by himself,
without dictatlon or influence from any
quarter, and then sought to convince the
public that it was unworthy Of belief,
futile as / might have considered the
task, | should certainly never have felt
called on to reply. This, however, he
has not done, but on the other hand, at
the very outset, makes the broad and
sweeping allegation that the confession,
instead OF being the work Of the wretch
ed man who purports to be its author,
was gotten up for him by others. This
bold accusation, it will be observed, is
made in general terms. Mr.. Montgom,
cry no doubt purposely omitted to name
any one as having been concerned in
connecting the statement, first, with a
view of afording no one pretext for
answering him, and secondly, that IN
case any one did answer, he might be
enabled to accuse such person with hav-
lrg kicked without being 'spurred,'--
But as have stated heretofore, the ma
ture and circumstances OF the case are
such that I cannot afford to let this reck-
less charge pass without demonstrating
its utter talsity and branding it as it de-
serves. A simple statement of facts will
show that this much is imperatively de-
mandcd at my hands.
1t is fresh in the recollection of all that
Fogler was tried and convicted at Feb
ruary term last, and that sentence of
death was pronounced on him on the
2Sth day. of February. Notwithstand.
ing his conviction and sentence, he still
continued for time to cherish the hope
that he would in some way be enabled to
escape the dread penalty OF the law
That hope was seriously shaken on his
learning that the Supreme Court had res
fused a writ of error IN his case, and l
am satisfied was finally extinguished by
the reading Of the death warrant 10 him.
which took place on Saturday, the 9th
of April. Now if this confession was
concocted tor him, as Mr.. Montgomery
alleges, it must have been done by some
person or persons allowed to hold COM
munication with HIM between this last
mentioned date and the day the confess
sion was signed, which was on tho 18th
Of April. The only persons visiting him
during that time, in addition to myself
and Mr.. Kennedy, the jslIor, were Rev.
DR. Browuson, ltav. " B Watkins,
Rev Joseph ID, Herr Wm. Hornish,
Esq, and DR.. IL Nj, Clark, The physician
to the jail, with perhaps casual call
from two or three others, but Of that l
am not certain. can truly affirm, how
ever, that there was no visit made to
him by any one during that time without
my being fully acquainted with the OBJ.
ject. DR.. Clarks calls were exclusively
in the line of his professional duty, and
the others were made solely with a view
of promoting the prisoners spiritual
welfare, and thus preparing HIM to meet
his rapidly approaching end.
As I stated last week, Mr.. Montgom-
cry himself acquits the subscribing wit-
nesses of all connection with the confess
sion, except the mere matter Of appendS
ing their names to it. This Of course