The Greene County Republican. [volume] (Waynesburg, Pa.) 185?-1867, 1867-06-26
NO.. 3.

to oondole with him in his distress.
Not a single harsh or unkind word
was spoken concerning him even
by those who had long been considered
his most implacable enemies. When
his son was arrested and lodged in Jail,
instead Of putting irons on him as I
might have done, in difference to Mr..
Montgomery's feelings and wishes I re-
laxed the rules, and allowed the family
to have free access to him as far as I
possibly could consistent with my official
duties and the safe~keeping OF the pris.
oner, All this kindness he now requites
by asserting that the confession of Fog
Ter is nothing but tissue of falsehoods
to which a lying mans assent has been
fraudulenlly procured with the sole de-
sign Of destroying himself and his fami.
ly.
Of one thing Mr.. Montgomery may
rest assured, and that is that a great
majority of those who are conversant
with the history of the case from begin
nlng to end, concur i'll the opinion that
he would have shown himself wiser
man had he meyer attempted the task of
assa,ling Fogler's confession, damaging
as its statements may have been to his
sons. If the reputation of bis family is
dependent upon the success of his effort
in that line, they are in sad situation
indeed, He may labor till doomsday,
and pile aifidavits mountain high, but
still the conviction that the statement
which Robert Fogler. llliterate as he
may have been, reatfirmed with his dy-
ing breath, is true, will remain unsha>
KEN
But how does he seek to show that
the confession is unworthy OF belief'--
The arguments he attempts to deduce
from Fogler's use of legal terms is
hardly worth noticing. When it was
suggested by James Montgomery that
the contemplated robbery could be best
accomplished by setting fire to the out-
buildings of Mr.. Dinsmore, Fogler oh.
jected to that plan on the ground that
two indictments could be preferred
against them--one for burglary and one
for drson-and this is adduced as evi.
dence that the confession was written by
somebody else. as it evinces too intimate
an acquaintance with legal terms to be
the work of so unlearned a man. Won.
derful As it ninety-nine men out of
every hundred did't know that breaking
into house at night was burglary, and
setting fire to buildings was arson! But
again, he told Babe he supposed the
law would make their offence 'burqlary
,c,th intent to MURDER Fam no lawyer,
but legal gentlemen inform me that this
is term that would hardly be made use
ofby one who had any knowledge of
the profession, and hence proves just the
opposite of what Mr., Montgomery in.
tends. As regards the 'prolongatlon' of
Main street, Fogler heard that very ex-
preston used during his trial, and hence
it is not strange that he employed it IN
describing the Hickory road running
from the upper end OF town.
The discrepancies between the confes,
sion and the statement made by Fogler
before the Coroner's jury, and on which
MIR. Montgomery lays so much stress,
are all satisfactorily explained by Fogler
himself, who says that at the request of
James Montgomery he had promised
not to implicate him if arrested. This
ehectually disposes Of the fine spun
argument made on that point, and hence
l need not waste time in replying to it.
The next assault is upon that part of
OF the confession which speaks of the
breaking Of the window at Miller's, and
here the affidavit of Henry Miller and
wife, Qhe latter Of whom Is a sister of
Mrs. Montgomery is produced to show
that no glass was broken in the window.
The affidavit itself states that no such
occurrence ever took place. Now l
have 1t from the best authority that Mr..
M Kee, the owner of the house occupied
by Miller, called the attention. Of the lat.
ter to one Of the windows which had
evidently been broken by something
being thrown against ii, as the indenta.
ton Of the sash was still TO be seen.
Miller informed him that Il
was broken by some person unknown to
the family Mr.. M'Kes also spoke 10
him on the subject on two other separate
occasions, and each time Miller told him
A different story in regard to the break.
ing. In view Of these contradictory
statements there ls manifes,ly no reliance
whatever to be placed in the affidavit Of
himself and wife. which has been 90
.riumphantly paraded.
Next we have Mrs. Creacrah who il
relied upon to show the falsity Of Fog