The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1868-03-26
RrOwn-Stanbery DimcuItV.

BrOwn-Stanbery DimcuItY.
Having enough quarrels of our own
to attend to, and, therefore, having
neither time nor disposition to meddlo
ourselves with other peoples, we shall
notice but those matters in this affair
which are Of public Importance. These,
fortunately, are but two; and the first
that claims our attention is embraced
in tho inquiry Has Mr.. Stanbery
been guilty of a m~isdemeanor in Officer
Mr.. Brown inslnuatcs that he has, and
Mr.. Stanbery declares positively that
he has not. Circumstances, as disclos-
ed IN each of the parties version ofthe
matter as given to the public, settle
nothing when taken by themselves,
but when taken with the positive state
ments of Mr.. Stanbery, as against the
idlo suspicious of Mr.. Brown, which
he don't pretend to rest upon any
moro stable foundation than his own
distorted distorted by acknowledged
existing enmity) mind. is sufficient to
clear Mr. Stanbery of any such charge,
Mt least until Mr.. Brown can add o lit
tic fact TO his fiction.
Tho second point, in this matter,
which we have proposed noticing, is (:
Has Brown charged the county, more
for the Public printing he has done,
than he should Justly receiver We
have followed the suggestion Of Mr..
Stanbery in his article, and made an in
vestigatlon Of the matter, as /: appears
in tho Auditors Office, and we find the
statements in Mr.. Stanbery's article, in
relation thereto, gu bstantially, correct.
This, then, establishes a basis upon
which every honest mar must render
his verdict. We find, by tho above
recited means, that Mr.. Brown has
charged, and received, at the rate of
over $4,000 per annum, por column,
for his advertising for tho County,
when he only charged private indiVid-
uals at the rate of $4,000 per column.
per annumn for their advertising
| Now, wo know that Mr.. Brown can
make a very good profit at the rates he
charges private individuals and, here
wo have it that he has charged the
County over ten times as much as hC
charges private individuals | If thit
is not a public swindle, we should like
know what it could DO termed.
But, as we are advised rs 10 The
defense Mr.. Brown will make In re-
gard to this, we will state it and MAKE
some comments thereon. 1t is "Cha
hq, Brown, has not charged the peopl,
OF Morgan county as much, as have
the printers, of some other Counties II
the State, for tho pubic printing
This may all be, but even if it is 80
we hold that it is no excuse for Mr.
lJIOWus vi luO ShluO Inv Vi ~ BuihShb
Mr.. Brown might hold that because
man stole IS, 100000 IN Muskingum, o
some other County, and escaped with
out punishment for his o%fi1nse, tina
il would be right for one to go un
punished who bad stolen 800 90 II
Morgan county. lfit is a fact that Mr.
Brown has not swindled tho people o
Morgan county out Of rs much money
as has tho proprietor of some Othe
County paper the people Of his Coun
ty, it is also a fact that Morgan county
can congratulate herself on being for
tunate in Mr.. Brown being, by com
p%arison, but q petty sWindler, Will
other Counties have been subjected t,
tho avarice of grand swindlers but
we rather think, according to tn
latter-day system Of morals, that thi
does not reflect much credIt.o on MI
Brown, and that it would be as we
for hun not to parade il before the reaC
, ers of the Herald