The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1868-04-23
LOCAL AND MISCELLANEOUS.
AN r SCHOLAR.

Mr.. Pyle, the Oditor OF the Herald,
shows himself TO bc an apt scholar.
Occupying his present position but a
few weeks, he shows himeelf able to
cope with all his predecessors in the
indisputablo characteristics of Radical
editors. 1t being nm admitted fact BY
all writers upon the subject, that trNth
il the natural emission OF the mind OF
man, and that all Justification and per-
version IA but the fruit Of long and
continued rebellion against the impul.
SEES OF nature, we had supposed that 1t
would tsko at least one campaign for
this gentleman 10 fall in with such la
montable habits, ns he has made cxhi-
bition Of, IN tho lastlssuo of his paper
particularly. Bit, we arc forced to
acknowledge our suppositiohs incor-
rect, and have to acknowledge Mr.. p.
\ master in Misrepresentation and
perversion, not to say downright false
hood. In noticing our article of the
issue of the 9th, in which wo contrast.
sd tho economy of Democracy with the
pubhc-piunderrsm of Rad!calism, Mr..
P. cites the people of Morgan county
TO an instance where q Democratic Au-
ditor. allowed a Democratic editor to
plumber the county in a manner SINH
lar to that in which MIR. Brown has
beer recently allowed to do by Radi.
cal Commissioners. While we admit
tho truth Of Mr.. P.'s statement in this
regard, we deny his right to attempt
10 fasten said plunderism upon the
Democratic party, and assert that no
knops he has no right to attempt it
$ Oar reasons for 30 saying are as, fol-
lows: Morgan county, at tho time
WIN Petit was Auditor, wusU Demo.
cratic comfy by a large majority, and
n~omiEation On the Democratic tick
ct, where tho nominee WAS tho proper
sort Ofa man, was equivalent to an
election. Mr. Petit having secured
the nomination for reelection. for Au-
dior, 1t then became known generally
that Mr.. Petit had been prIvy to, and
had allowed one Clerk, a publisher Of
Il Democratic Journal, to- plumber the
county by excessive bills for public
p printing, and tho result Of this was
" LL
that while all the balance Of she DEM
ocratic ticket was selected, Mr.. Petit
WAS defeated by considerable OF It IN II.
jority. In other words, when tho
Democracy became aware OF the pccu-
lation Mr.. Petit had allowed to be
perpetratcd on tho county, they dis
cardod him, (though their regular
nominee and voted for his opponent
"a whig) ard elected him. This fully
shows that Dem ocracy Will not sane.
ton any such proceedings.
Buthow about The position the Her,
4, aid takes in relation 20 .hp recent case
9 Of public plunderlsm. Under the con :
trJl Of Brown, il fought hard to make
the public think there had not been
too much CHI urged, or too much paid,
for tho public printing. Now, under
tho control Of Mr.. p, 1t attempts to
justify the Commissioners in paying
Mr.. Brown 500 for a $50 job by citing
y case whore al afterwards discarded
Democrat committed u similar act
The difference which these two cases,
and the attending circumstances,
marks out plainly beIweon Democracy
and RadlcalIsm, is: Democracy cen
sures and Furnishes public
while Radicalism tries to Justify and
foster the same. and resorts ~ prevar-
ication and Misrepresentation to ac-
complish its object.