The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1870-10-06
An Infamous Removal Plot Exposed.
A seathtnE Letter from WIN. n. Rose.

We copy the subjoined letter from VIM.
Horace Rose, Esq, the Democratic candi-
date for Assembly, which we find in the
Mountain Echo, new Democratic paper
established in Johnstown, the irst number
of which appeared on last Saturday. Itex-
poses and thoroughly ventilates as low and
dishonest q scheme on the part of the leaders
in the removal swindle as they are so fully
competent of attempting. The plot was
this: Boggs, NJ Laughlin & Go. proposed
to raise $1,000 90. through the Cambria
Iron Company and from 1.-The people up
town." (Johnstown,) for the base purpose of
attempting to control the Democratic Coun-
ty Convention and nominating therein a
candidate favorable to remoUGl." If this cor
rupt plan had succeeded, it was suggested
by the leaders that Rose ''might be willing
to give pledge satisfactory to the Removal
men," provided he, Rose was nominated by
the regular County Convention. We gather
these damaging and disgraceful facts from
the letter of Mr.. John Hannah, addressed to
Mr.. Rose. This pledge was written, as Mr.
Hannah states, by that pure aud incorrupti-
BILE patriot, Daniel Mclaughlin. and was
returned to him by Mr.. Hannah. John
Hannah says that Rose "repudidted the
,cltole thing" and that he, Rose, "1oould giUe
no pledge ichateUer in faror Of RemoUdl. either
open or prirate." This plain and straight
forward letter of Mr.. Hannan's unearths as
vile. Infamous and corrupt plot as ever
disgraced the politics of this or any other
State, and the facts connected with the en-
tire scheme ought to consign the leaders of
the Removal faction who were engaged in
it, to richly merited infamy:
JoHEsTowN, Sept. %, 1870.
EpIToR OF THE MOUNTAIN Echo A mali
cious attack having been made H. on nae by the
editor of the Johnstown Tribune in his las.
weeks issue. / wish space in your columns to
reply. Mr.. Swank has publicly stated that he
had in his possession an affidavit made by me
before Justice Strayer relative to the Gone
maugh" articles, and has published another
not the one made. If he has the affidavit, he
has committed a base forgery, and if he did
not have it then he stated what is not true
He SAYS | made the affidavit for the purpose of
keeping in with the Removal men. The party
before whom the affidavit made will n-
form him that the removal question had moth
ing whatever to DO with it. SwaDk says that
/ sternly denied giving information TO "Cooe-
maugh.'' II he goes to Squire StraYer and
the other party to whom the affidavit was
given they will tell him that / distinctly said
| had talked about things that appeared in the
articles. doubtless in the presence of "Cone-
maugh," or some one who told him. but did
not know who the writer was. / say now what
l said then, that did not know what was to
appear in the "COnemaugh" articles until 1
read them in the paper or heard parties speak
OF them. / don't know to this moment who
the writer of the "Conemaugh" articles was
Swank says the conversation he had with me
on the 81 Justice" articles was private. l can
prove that two other arties ere present and
heard it, and that the conversation was an
angry one, and that same evening repeated it
openly to parties in a store and among Others
to a gentleman connected with the Johnstown
Democrat. Swank says the party who held
the affidavit took it to him for public ation.-
That gentleman publicly denies it. As to the
local item, / never authorized it or knew it
had been prepared until about three weeks
since The gentleman who wrote it will say SO.
Swank next sayE that just before the Ebens-
burg Convention l wrote to him and wished
space in his paper to show up Pershing. That
l spoke disparagingly of Brown and Griffin
That l threatened to divulge something on
Horne. That l could aud would deleat any
person nominated but w. II. Rose
ventiop in which / intended to present my
name a candidate, go and put myself in the
hands of the editor OF an opposition paper in
the manner indicated by Swahk is too absurd
to require denial. l never asked Swank any
such privilege. He haG no such conversation
with me.
Mr.. Swank has heretofore promised to prove
that offered to pledge myself for Removal.
Last week he attempted TO do so. For this
purpose card signed by H A. Boggs, A
Copelin and others, is published These gen.
tlemen assert that some party-they fail to
give the name-proposes to speak for me. l
never authorized any one 80 to do. On the
contrary, was offered to have put at my dis
posal means to carry the canvass if | would
give such pledge. refused ] have steadi-
ly said and say now l am in favor of general
civil jurisdiction for the District Court That
the limit of two hundred dollars is wrong. Be-
yond this did not go. ! hence anxious
to know who had been proposing to speak in
that way for me. l noticed that the gentle
man certified that Joseph Grouse, the Chair
man of the Removal Committee, had been
present. I knew he would tell me who the
party was. | noticed he had not signed the
card. / called upon him and here is what he
says:
JoHSsrowN, Pa, Sept. 81, 1870.
w. HORACE RosE-Sir: In answer to your
inquiry / have to say that / was not present at
any meeting of the friends of the Removal
movement when your name was PROPOSED as q
candidate of the Removal Party, or when any
person said that he was authorized to say that
you would give the Removal men a pledge
Yours, JosErH GROUSE.
heard from another source that John Han
nan was said to be the person. 1 called upon
Mr.. Hannah, and here is what he says;
Sept. 28th, 1870.
WIN. II. RosE, ESQ. Dear Sir +: Ny atten-
ton having been called to certificate in the
last Johnstown Tribune, signed by A. Cope
lin and others, and being informed by one of
the signers to that document that l am the
person who it is there reported assumed to act
by your authority in making or agreeing to
make pledge in favor of Removal" )" deem
it but just to you to make the following state
ment in denial thereof;
During some of the preliminary converse
tions with reference to Removal" the pro-
priety of attempting to control the Democratic
County Convention and nominating therein a
candidate favorable to Removal was discussed,
and as you had already made some progress in
the canvass for the Democratic nomination, it
was suggested that yoC might be willing to
rtxa oiaA. fsofa TO-