Juniata sentinel. [volume] (Mifflintown, Pa.) 1846-1873, 1873-01-01
THE COUNTY PRINTING.

~
within the past few weeks attempted to
create sentiment against the repeal of
the obnoxious and unjust printing Act
that was last winter inflicted on the peo-
pie of this county. Their articles have
been abusive of those who ask for its
repeal, aud they have gone long dis
tance out of their way to condemn Col.
j. j. Patterson for the passage of the
act of April, 1867. If Col. Patterson is
to be condemned for the passage of that
act, what condemnation should be visited
on the Honorable Senator for inficting
on the peo ,,ie-of this county an act inf
nitely worse than the one it displaced
The act of 1867 comprehended under
its provisions the election proclamation.
the receipts and expenditures of the
county. the court proclamation, the trial
list. the jury list, and the printing OF
certain blanks. The act that the Honor
able Senator had passed last winter com
pretended under its provisions all of the
printing just stated. but does not stop
there. 1t enters the court and dictates !;
it extends it's rule over executors and
administrators, guardians and trustees.
Its avaricious grasp reaches the estate Of
the widow and orphan and compels them
to pay tribute to its mandat.s.
IF the act of 1867 was unjust, the act
passed by the Honorable Senator last
winter was thrice over unjust.
The Republican and Register, that are
Low so laboriously at work to create pub
lie opinion to prevent the repeal of the
act Of last winter, do their utmost to
draw the attention Of the public from the
act passed by the Honorable Senator. by
lengthy articles on the act of 1867. They
have charged US with the defea: of the
repeal of the act of 1867 during the ses-
sion of 1871, tho winter that both the
Honorable Senator Crawford and the
Honorable Representative Rohrer were at
Harrisburg
In one article we are charged with
having been in the lobby at Harrisburg
and operating from that place in anoth-
er article ae are charged with having
operated from our office. These articles
contradict each other to such a degree
that as evidence they are worth nothing.
1t is astonishing that Mr. Allison, who is
professedly a lawyer should fall into such
contradictions.
They have produced no evidence to
sustain their charges. If we had been
at work to defeat the repeal of the act in
question, certainly we would not have
contented ourself with a consultation, as
is alleged, with the slaves of the Honor
able Senator, but would have addressed
the master himself Most assuredly we
would have appealed to the Honorable
Senator and the Honorable Representa-
tive, and doubtless to other members of
the Legislature, if these honorable gen.
t!emcn sere not powerful enough to Sc
cure its repeal.
We addressed no member of the Leg
islature of 1871 to aid in any work for or
against the act of 1867. Nevertheless
the R,pnbican and Reg ster, in their
service to their master, obey his decrees
and charge on. Master and ali must be
stone blind in making these untenable
charges, for if they could be sustained by
proof, the Honorable gentlemen should
not have permitted them to have been
made, for if such proof could be pro-
duced, it would also prove that the Hon.
orable gentlemen were of no account as
members Of the Legislature. If the
charges of the Republican and Register
were true, then were we 1.-the power be-
hind the throne that manipulated these
Honorable gentlemen at pleasure. If
their charges are true, then were old and
time-honored customs among members of
the Legislature violated and the Honor
able gentlemen deprived of the privilege
of controlling the local legislation of
their county. IF their charges are true,
then were the Honorable gentlemen pow
erless to maintain their own dignity as
members, and were of no use in the Leg.
islature. If their charges are true, then
were we the legislator, ard the Honor
able gentlemen only our instruments.
Their side of the case must be desper-
ale one, when its defence thus condemns
itself.
We have not only been charged with
the defeat of the repeal of the act of
1867. but we have been condemned for
advocating the repeal Of the act passed
bv the Honorable Senator last winter.
1t is alleged that because we are not
doing the county printing we advocate
its repeal, Thereais nothing in that
charge, for their is no obstacle in the
way to prevent us or any other newspa.
per publisher in the county becoming
competitor for the county printing. There
is nothing in the way to prevent our
going to fellow publisher and saying.