Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1869-10-22

purported to be an original document.
There is one further circumstance /
which deserves to be brought to the /
particular attention of the reader. If
the HurIbutt letter, which Leonard ac-
knowledges to have signed, was in ex-
istence at the time the Kruek letter !
was brought to this Office, why was not !
the former document sent insteadofthe ]
spurious concern signed A. D. Leon
ard? Or, if it was intended to send a
COPY why was not the document copied
correctly and the copy marked as such?
Why this discrepancy in the dates ?
Does it not look as though this A. J
Leonard letter was an afterthought ?
We do not say that it was, for we have
no original knowledge of the subject,
but the difference in dates and other
circumstances look suspicious. The
peoples ticket was handed in for pub
/ lication on the 18th Of September. In
our issue of two days after (Sept. 17thl
we called attention to the fact that
Leonard's name had been removed
I from the ticket on the eve of publica-
tion. On the following Thursday, a
week later, the Kruck letter made its
appearance at this Office, and in our is
sue or the following day Sept. 26th)
we called attention to the fact that such
a letter had been left here and also to
the announcement which Leonard had
requested us to make that he never
authorized the use of his name on the
] f-aD-,Ta9- Tn, (nf
Oct. 1st) we had an editorial article de-
nouncing this letter as a fraud and ex-
posing the fact that # was signed by a
fictitious name. Still the A. J. Leon
ard or HurIbutt letter did not make its
appearance. But on that very day
t(oct. u Leonard himself appeared at
our Office and declared in the presence
of two witnesses that he never signed
or authorized the Kruck letter, which
we then showed him, nor did he mem
tion or intimate that he had signed or
authorized any similar communiea-
ton. 1t was now October 1, and, as
will be seen above, the Hurlbutt let
ter was dated Sept. 10. In our issue of
the ensuing Friday (Oct. 81 we had a
second editorial denouneing the Kruck
letter as spurious, and calling eonspie-
uous attention to its fictitious sigma
iture. It was not until after our paper
of that date had made it's appearance
that the editor of the Herald found il
e convenient to exhibit to US letter the
signature of which A. J. Leonard ac
: knowledged to be genuine. Why was
4 this letter kept back until this time i
q it was in existence on the 23d of Sep
tember? How does it come that Leon
ard did not seem conscious of the ex
Eistence of such communication wheI
1 we showed him the spurious Kruel
2 letter on the Ist of October? Why wa
d the direct and explicit charge of spur
: Iiousness made in the GAZETTE of Oct
Ist allowed to rest until the sth of Oc
tober, the last Friday previous to tn
: election, before the Hurlbutt letter wa
v produced?
These are questions which we Ieav
e those having original knowledge of fh
subject to answer. We do not say tina
= the Hurlbutt letter may not have bee
! in existence from the time of its dat
n (Sept. I5th), but aVGs it? Neither do W
pretend to know what influences wer
Is brought to bear upon Mr.. Leonard t
induce him to sign this document G
, sOheal he signed it. But he himself tol
!, us on Friday, Oct. 1st, the day whe
/. our first article exposing the Kruc
4, letter appeared, that certain partie
!. concerned in the peoples ticket ha
- called upon him while at work in hi
n corn field that same morning, and ha
II brought him post-haste to Delawari
is While he was yet talking to us in thi
d office he was called out by one of thes
( parties. Why all this commotio
!" among the unterrifed? If they had i
70 their possession at that time genuin
t. Leonard letter, why did they not pre-
Ie duce it? Why delay another week uI
d til wei had administered a second bomt
n shell exposure of the fraud? The ex
l. penses of the Democratic canvass wer
e paid by somebody was Mr.. Leonar
b victimized in this particular
We might mention other eireumstaI
e ces to confirm our suspicious about th
. real date of this A. J. Leonard document
/ but refrain for the present. Our ohjeC
it has been chiefly to set at rest foreve
the utterly and unequivocally false az
cusation of having originated the :
D. Leonard letter, and we believe W
e have thoroughly succeeded. The fact
., we have cited may and probably wi
lg be replied to with personal abuse bU
al that is neither argument nor answer.
2. In evasion of unpleasant respons
s, bilities it has been made bold to lay g
o. our door the origin of a fraud we hav
exposed, and to charge us with the il
IS. vention of a false document or tn
Justification of a true one. We hav
exploded these nnqualifedly false an
slanderous charges by overwhelmin
u proofs, and now leave our assailant
Is either to take the responsibility of th
III fraud or place it upon the proper shou
ders of their partisans. hoping for oul
selves to be finally done with the evel
lasting Leonard business.
ne mn .I.A.-..1