The daily Argus., 1874-02-24
FLEHARTY c0NFEssEs THAT HE GOT
WARNER TO DO IT.
The Partizan Bigotry Of Warner. Fleharty q
Co. Exposed.

70, Exp0sou'
On the 26th of January, Mr., Warner, of
Henry, made a few appropriate remarks
in the legislature upon the Importance OF
industrious work on the revision Of the
laws The remarks which he then made
were we'll enough, and were commended in
THE ARGUS at the time
On the 9th of February-two weeks az
terwards the Union published flaming
speech as having been delivered in the
house by Mr. Warner, (no date given as
to when it was delivered) which was so un-
ike the remarks which he really did make
that we exposed the trick of writing out
and publishing, as speech, what was
never delivered, The Speech as published,
singles out Mr.. Dunham as an object Of
attack. AS delivered, it did no such
thing-nor is there any excuse for such an
invidious, unfair, and partizan proceeding.
The committee to revise the laws of the
state is as follows: Senators Clark w.
Upton, of Waukegan, Lake county; and
Charles B. Steele, of Nation, Coles coun-
ty; and Representatives John M. Roun-
tree, Of Chicago, Cook county; Milton
Hay, Of Springfield, Sangamon county,
and Charles Durham, of Geneseo
Henry county-aU Republicans, er-
cept Mr.. D,uham Now if Mr..
Warner can give any reasonable excuse
for writing out and publishing a personal
attack on MIR. Dunham in relation to his
pay as a member of that committee which
does not apply with equal force to the 9TH
er members Of the committee, we should
be happy to hear it. If, then, he singles
out Mr.. Dunham as an object of attack in
order to injure him before the people, and
omts any reference to the other members
of the committee who are paid precisely as
Mr.. Durham is paid, does it not show that
Mr.. Warner is not actuated by any desire
for the public good? Does it not show
that in his narrow, partisan mind, he would
screen four of his own party friends and
condemn one Of his opponents, though all
are alike censurable if one is? Of course
it does If there is anything wrong about
the pay, the Republican state government
is responsible for it. If the amount al
lowed is improper, Mr.. Warmers political
friends alone are censurable. They allow
ed the amount-not Mr.. Dunham. And
yet Mr.. Warner makes no allusion to his
own party friends who passed the resolu-
ton fixing the time for which this commit
tee should be paid he makes no allusion
to the Republican Auditor of Public Ac-
counts who paid the bill; he makes no al
lusion to four of his own party friends
whose allowance was precisely the same as
that of Mr.. Duuham-but he singles out
Mr.. d. as responsible for the whole mat.
ter Can there be anything more unjust,
unfair or contemplate? NO-unless it be
the action Of Fleharty in getting Warner
to do it and Haverstick to publish it.
We charged that Mr.. Warner, or some.
body for him, was palming upon the peo
pie pretended speech which was not I'll,
speech he made
The Union replied that Mr.. Warner
furnished us It'll that speech in manu-
script"
And now Fleharty writes a letter to the
Union, from Springfield, Feb IS, saying
Il IS. F. Flehartyl asked him Warner
to reduce it the speech to writing fol
publication He does not say whether
Warner did it or not-he leaves us to infer
that. At any rate the pretended speech il
now traced to Warner and Fleharty, whC
probably fixed it up between them. They
confess that, now 1t was not done at the
time The writing it up was an after
thought. Fleharty admits that it was mo-
verbatim report-he says it is syn
opsis" As published, it purports to be
the exact words of Mr. Warner Fleharty
now admits that it is not a verbatim re
port.
1t is simply a small and mean effor
Originating with Fleharty as he confesse
in his letter. of Fleharty and Warner Il
injure Mr.. Dunham in relation to the
pay of the committee on revision, when
it was fixed by Republican Legislature
and allowed and paid by Republican Au
ditor, and Mr.. Durham had nothing
whatever to do with it. 1t is a
attempt to injure him for re
ceiving the same pay precisely as hi
four Republican colleagues did. Flehart
and Warner, in the pretended speech, cen
sure Mr.. Durham and omit to say any
thing about those who are really re
sponsible. Fleharty, Warner & Co. hav,
been thoroughly exposed in their meannes
and partizan bigotry, and they are welcom
to all the glory they have won in the dirt
business in which they have been engaged