The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1867-05-23

aHen. VIM. Montgomery, the father Of
the boys, William, James and A. j., ac-
lcused by Fogler Of q knowledge, or
participation i'm, the murder Of Mr..
lDinsmors, publishes q lengthy AcOmmu-
nication in the Washington Rerie'o, OF
this week, in which he goes into close
and searching analysis of the Fogler
statement, to show its utter untruthfui-
ness. Mr.. Montgomery-who in tins
deplorable affair cannot but have the
sympathies of ali rejecting men-urges
that the Fogler confession was the work
of several hands, and wa, gotten up
for the purpose of injuring everybody
who had taken any friendly part for
the unfortunate and guilty wretch. who
purports to. be its author, whilst those
who arrested, convicted and hanged him
are made the subjects of special lauda-
ton. Mr.. Montgomery asserts that by
this means Fogler hoped to gain par
don, and save his life. He charges Fog
Ter with being NEST abandoned liar.
In regard to the statements in Foglers
confession of his son Williams guilt,
Mr.. Montgomery refers to the fact that
the Coroner's jury found no such EVIL
dence, and that after protracted and
zealously contested trial, William was
acquitted of The charge. On this point
Mr.. Montgomery says, in reference TO
the wholesale accusations in Foglers
confession: SIT was not my son that
was being prosecuted; it was myself. l
was to be hunted down; what little in
fluence and standing I had, were to be
destroyed. All my children were to be
disgraced, and their good names and
hopes in life blasted" The confession,
he alleges is in contradiction of what
Fogler had previously sworn to; it was
not written or suggested by him, who
was a very illiterate man, and could not
spell correctly even the most common
words. Mr.. Montgomery demonstrates
this by quoting legal phrases and terms
used by Fogler, that he was not likely
to be acquainted with. He again as.
serts his. belief that Fogler concealed
the name of his real accomplish in the
assassination of Mr.. Dinsmsre, and inn
plicated his son, in the hope OF escaping
from punishment by so doing.
Mr. Montgomery prints in his state
ment letters from parties named in
Fogler's confession, denying the asser-
tions of the latter in regard to his 9TH
er sons; and, in regard to Fogler's state.
meat that the Montgomery boys had
proposed to him to rob their father, Mr..
N. saws that his three sons had access
to every part of his house, and knew
where his money was kept, and they
could, if 80 disposed, at any time, have
taken all the money he had in his house.
Mr.. Montgomery concludes his state
ment by referring to the closing declare
ton of Fogler's confession, that he for
gives those who perjured themselves on
his trial, in the testimony they gave
against him. "Yet," Mr.. Montgomery
SAYS, "no mention is made in The state
ment of those who perjured themselves
on the trial" Why does not Fogler
give the names of those who swore his
life awayi This is matter in which
the whole community is interested.
Yet their names are carefully withheld.
The main points in Mr.. Montgomery's
statements are-that the confession was
composed or dictated by others, impel-
led thereto oy personal hostility to him
self and family; that the confession is
totally unworthy of belief; and that
the motive of Fogler in asserting t"
such statements, was to secure his own
pardon by duplicating those whom he
supposed would exercise their influence
to that end, in order to silence him; and,
at the same time, he was obeying those
personally hostile to Mr.. Montgomery,
and who were instrumental in getting
the confession up.