The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1868-04-11
THE TRIAL.
The Salem Record, referring to this trial,

The Salem Record, referring to this trial,
says
1.-THE Albany Democrat. in giving an account Of
the Montgomery trial. which was oceasioned by
the death Of Martha Topper in this city. says "tWo
Radical papers in Salem" "ebarged tha, . great
crime had been committed By Montgomery" As
that expression evidently includes the Record, We
deny the truth Of the statement We never men,
toned the mans name in that connection. saYe
that he was indicted by the grand jury here.
We made no mention
Of Montgomery politics. but from the nature Of
the case and the Of the Democrat we
sec plainly he is not a Union man"
Il will be seen that the Record editor de-
MES that, when speaking of the death Of
Martha Topper, he charged that a great
crime had been committed by Montgomery.
The exact language Of the editor is as fol-
lows "a great crime has been committed
against society-a life has been sacrificed a
the penalty" 1t is true the editor did not use
Mo~ntgomery's name in the article in which
this occurs but he described the "seducer''
as a married man Of Albany" and refer.
red to the ''death. bed testimony" Of Martha
Upper as q means Of identifying the man
who had made her a 'yictim of HIS lust. "
Will the Record editor deny that he did not
mean Montgomery? Unless he does, he is
in a dilemma from which no amount of pet
~tifogging will extricate him.
The Record says he made no mention of
M~ontgomery's politics, but from the nature
of the case and our comments he learns that
Mr.. NJ. is q Democrat. We dare the editor
to deny that he did not know Montgomery to
be q Democrat when he penned the article
against him. If he had been a Radical, in
stead of saying anything against him, the
editor would have held up his hands in holy
horror at the very idea. Did he not, last
summer or fall, condemn another editor of
Salem for saying something about another
married man of Albany" charged with Sc
duction2 Of course he did. But that "mar-
ried man of Albany was a Radical, and
therefore it was sacrilege to touch him. But,
in the matter of Montgomery, he being q
Democrat, the case was changed. The
boot was on 'tother leg. "Your bull had
gored my OK" and hence no effort was spar.
ed to prejudice and PREJUDICE the case before
the trial.
Another Radical paper of Salem notices
Montgomery's trial very patheticaily and
quite lengthily; but as it is not our intention
to occupy much more space on this subject,
we shall not further notice it atpresent, than
to say that the article is a tissue of misrep-
resentation and falsehood. Montgomery, when
charged with a great crime, by a Grand Jury
of al adjoining county, obtained . change
of venue to Linn county-where he lives
and where the crime with which he was
charged was alledged to haye been pcrpetra-
ted. He stood his trial like "a man and al.
though ably prosecuted, the jury were not
long in rendering a verdict of acquittal after
they had retired. 1t is possible that he may
be guilty, as charged by the Unionist but
a jury of twelve good citizens have said thai
he is not and with this decision every good
citizen should be content.