The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1870-04-28

TO ALL WHOM II MAY CoNcERs. p
Having learned that an attack was to be
made upon me through the Democrat. under
cover Of communication signed D. Nc
Laughlin, requested Of the Messrs. Wood
ruff 'proof' of the article. in order that
my reply might appear in the same issue of
the paper. The very limited time afforded
me between the reception of the proof sheet
aud the publication of the Democrat, CON-
pels hurried reply.
Mr.. Mclaughlin manifests great indigua-
ton in his article. That this is assumed to
divert attention from his base conduct, will
be plain to every one who knows him. The
sense OF delicacy which restrained him from
publishing confidential letter till called on
by suspected committee is exquisite. How
a letter entrusted to his care for delivery to
a gentleman in Harrisburg, and which Nc
Laughlin admits he did not hand over to the
party to whom it was ad 'ressed, but which
he (McL } opened and still retains. could be
the "death warrant Of our people," l will
allow him to explain when he is relieved of
the $50 much pain" with which be is now
afflicted. If the opening Of private letter
belonging to another party revealed to him
that he was ''dupe and tool" all he has to
do in the future. to avoid such unpleasant
revelations. is to keep his itching fingers
from opening letters that do not belong TO
him. l deny, however, that made him or
that he is my "dupe and tool" / have no
notion of introducing a new subject of con-
troversy with my assailants by claiming
their property.
Mr.. McLaughlin's whole communication
is nothing but piece of special pleading.
intended to shield him from merlted odium
In it he labors to make it appear that two
letters which | wrote at his special solicita-
tion-viz: one to Mr.. Schnatte-ly and one
to Mr.. Brown-were the means of defeating
the bill for the removal of the county seat.
The charge is wholly without foundation
Mr.. Mclaughlin admits that he did not
deliver the letter entrusted to him to Mr.
SchnatterIy, but alleges the absence of Mr..
s. as his excuse. The fact is, Mr. Scbnat t.
terly was in Harrisburg for several hours
after Mr.. Mclaughlin reached there on the
7Ih of March. and Mr.. Mel could have de-
livered the letter, and possibly would have
done so, had it not been, as have good rea-
son to believe, previously opened. Mr..
Brown received the letter directed to him
He was an opponent of the bill, aud / have
incon trovertible proof that he was pledged
against it before I went to Harrisburg on
the 28th of February. So little did nv let
ter suit Mr.. Browns position on the ques-
tion, that he wrote TO me shortly after the
defeat Of the bill 81 never even Informed
any one that l got letter from you." To
claim that these letters defeated the removal
is absurd.
Mr.. Mclaughlin refers to the bill intro.
| duced at the late session for the extension Of
the jurisdiction Of the District Court. I re,
garded the passage of that bill as absolutely
| necessary If the court was to be of any ser.
vice in the trial of OWL causes. and so wrote
to the chairman Of the Local Judiciary, Gen
McCreary. My letter was read during the
discussion before the committee. This bill
was negatived upon the ground, as reported
that IL nrnRidRd fnr the aianair.. of -. - J,