Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-08-21
A Card.

We, the undersigned employees of the
Buckeye Agricultural Works in this city,
feel 1t our duty, as men, to assure the pub
lie that Mr. John 81. Thomas had no au-
thority to use our names In the protest in
serted in the Transcript. They did not ask
us to sign 1t, but placed our names without
any authority whatever. We say nothing
against Mr.. Thomas except what is already
said he used our names without our con- :
sent. Mr.. Thomas has alaoays treated us as
gentlemen SO far as he has treated US at all.
We have been employed In the Buckeye
Works about six months apiece, and al
though MIR. Thomas claims to be the friend
of the laboring man, he has not spoken two
words to any of us in this time. We have
not received any of his good advice that
he has been so kind in giving to the labor
ing men. We have tried to do our duty as
Iaboring men wherever employed, and
wish for every man to treat US as men,
whether considering US as such or not.
[Signed] Doc. LEACH,
q II. LEACH, ss e. LEACH ss...ss
.Sssl M. A RMsTRoNG, g. LEACH, E'tuas
q AFe j. ARMSTRONG, T. ARMsTRoNG. g Z. : /,
We find the above in the Springfield Ad-
uertiser, and the Advertiser wishes to know
whether we will publish this card, and do
these xggrieved persons Justice. 1t is not
our rintention to do anybody injustice. e
Now, what is there in this card The
signers say that Mr. JOHN H. THOMAS had
no authority to use their names in the pro-
testfnserted in the 7Taascrsps that they did
not ask them to sign it, but placed their
names without.any authority whatever
Here is conflict of statement. By what
process did Mr.. THOMAS become pluralf
Way did they not sign the protest Did
they refuse to do SO because there,was any
thing false IN it? No, not a bit of it. They
were not asked to sign it. That is their
complaint. They testify that Mr.. THOMAS
has ''al,odys" treated them 'sas gentsemen.''-
This was the very point in is
sue between Mr.. THOMAS and the
Transcript, which the protest signed by the
workingmeu in his employ sought to COR
rect. The Hanscript had, in effect, charged
that he had treated those in his employ as
mere dogs. These men give fiat denial to
this. They say that they have been in his
of time he has always treated them as gem
tlemen. and they do not say that their treat
ment has been exceptionable that he
treated them as gentlemen and other men
in his employ the reverse.
The protest. which these men say they
did not sign, because they were not asked
to do so, sets forth that the signers know
Mr.. Thomas to be their friend; that they
esteem him that his conduct towards them
and intercourse with them, both in the fac-'
tory and out of it, is kind and gentlemanly;
that they regard the comparing of the
Buckeye Agricultural Works g to the Ohio
Penitentiary, as an insult to them, SO
wanton and uncalled for rs to be justified
by no pretended or real devotion to party"
The signers of this :" card" say nothing
whatever contradictory of what is set forth
in this protest. 1t then stands as true, and
the Advertiser is not relieved from the
charge of having, for base party purposes,
borne false testimony against Mr.. THOMAS.