Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1878-09-19
BASE FORGERY.

j District were SO determined to elect Il
that any trickery and dishonesty +
means they could invent would be resort c
ID to, in order to secure his election, and Z
we are now fully convinced of the cor
of our anticipation, as every body
else will be, who reads the quotations we
here make, from the Columbus Statesman, :
Mr.. Conyerse's political organ in this :
Congressional District. In the paper re- {
ferred to is published letter, protesting
to give Mr.. English's opinion of Mr..
Converse in connection with the Staudt-
HaIbach-Mercer case, which was tried
several months since, and Mr.. Converse's
infidelity to his client fully exposed.
The Statesman introduces the forged let
ter in this way:
tFMr. Converse's friends have waited
now four weeks while unparalleled false
hood and abuse have been printed in the
newspapers and circulated in secret cir
culars all over the district about him.
They expected that Mr.. English from his |
own sense of manhood aud honesty would !
do his opponent the Justice to come out in |
card denying the truth of the slanders, |
or at least ex0nerate himself from haV- |
ing anything to do with them. Indica- |
| tiOns now are that all this while he has
had his own hand in this dirty business.
In his trip to Grove City the other day
his driver peddled the dirty circulars
| while he shook hands with the voters.
sfWhen Mr.. Converse was first candi-
date for nomination and before Mr.. Eng
| lish thought of being candidate, with
| out solicitation, Mr.. English prepared the
following paper for publication and gave
it to Mr.. G. to be used if he thought best.
| Mr.. English was the attorney, for Mercer,
NET~ ~,
paper was Immediately placed in the
hands of Mr.. ConVeTse's personal friends
who thought the judicial opinion of Judge
Green in deciding the case, and which
was published at the time, was shorter
and better vindication of him than the
statement made by Mr.. English. The
paper is in Mr.. English's own hand, and
is now in our possession for the inspec-
ton of any of Mr.. English's friends who
may doubt its authority"
This is what the Statesman which
makes such sham professions of honesty
says in relation to Mr.. English, in intro
ducing the forged letter to his credulous
readers.
A LIE AND A FORGERY NAILED UPON THE
FOREHEAD OF THE COLUMBUS STATESMAN.
In the Ohio State Journal, of Saturday
last, we find the following, which con-
victs the editor of the Statesman with Civ
ing publicity and currency to a brazen
lie and forgery, that should condemn
any party that resorts to such ISLANDERS
and vfl1ainy for success.
!, / The Journal introduces Mr.. English IS
, letter to that paper. The editorial intro
: duction and the accompanying letter OF
n | Mr.. English will explain themselves:
Q An irresponsible paper, the representa-
) tive of George L. Converse in this cam.
:. paign, recently printed a document pur-
g porting to be signed by Lorenzo English
in reference to Mr.. COnverse's connection
:. with the case of Staudt and Halbach VS.
Mercer. The document was put forward
} as proof that Mr.. English had eXonerateC
IL Mr.. Converse from the charge of crook
edness made against the latter by Demo
Il Gratis. The lack of character upon tn
: part of the paper alluded to threw doub
= upon the document at once; the follow
TO ing letter from Mr.. English stamps it
re deliberate and malicious forgery:
" Editor Statesman:
: In the issue of your paper of the lit
IL inst, you publish what you claim to b
Of an expression of my views of the profes
OF sional conduct of Mr.. Converse touchin
the subject matter of the Staudt-Halbach
Mercer case, and thereof say editorially
III s'When Mr.. Converse was first cand
lr date for nomination, and before Mr.. Eng
ne lish thought of being a candidate, with
is cut solicitation, Mr.. English prepared tn
foregoing paper for publication, and CAV
le 1t to MIC. to be used If he thought best,
r. and yeu then publish statement pul
In porting to be signed by me. If you hay
:. in your possession any such article pul
- porting to be signed by me, the signatul
us is undoubtedly forgery; norris it in an
he manner true that have at any time pr
rv pared such an article for publication, {
=, in any manner to be used by Mr.. Coz
10, verse as coming from me or in connectiC
lte with my name. You may have though
ng so when you so published, but he WI
nd furnished you such information qoeU kne
:. that the statement was untrue. The p
" per you publish purporting to come fro
ey me neUer signed, nor did I egeT Guthori
any to sign my name to 1t. OF course
do not claim at present to know the auth
Of this forgery.
IN 1t is true that in the case of Staudt al
on Halbach vs.. Mercer / was one of the g
at7l toFneys of Mercer who tried the case, al
was and am familiar with the testimon
AE and I hope that to the extent of my alb
lu- ity in argument, 1 presented the case
,ill his horror, Judge Green, who heard al
decided it, in its most formidable ligl
The circumstances under which the mf
ouG ter of the paper which you publish car
nee to the possession of Mr.. c., that is,
tof much of it as I have any knowledge
hot are as follows: When Mr.. G. was befo
49, his party for nomination, publicatio
on were made severely rejecting upon
the conduct, professionally. In Connect
me- with the subject matter of this actiC
=. Mr.. Converse came to me and most sire
uously insisted that should, in his nan
re- commence an action of libel against
V to authors and publishers OF this to him {
use jecti0nable matter. | advised against
80 giving him my reason, which l will l
repeat, in this respect, preferring not
Ners follow the example of Mr.. C. So mu
the of the matter of your publication as ca
this from me / furnished as I would to a
; - other client, as view which I have in
gament taken of the testimoney in
case, to be put into shape and used
ZEN. Mr.. G. in his O1CR name, if he saw prop
1ses but in no manner as coming from me,
- in connection with my name. Of cour
Vn the view which / took of the testimo
war must be radically different from that t
you en- of it by the Judge who tried the ca
# for, otherwise, it's impossible to see he
-, in impartial fairness, the conclusion
7P4S the Court was reached. On the trial
lere the case of Mr.. Converse testified, q
less witness, that in the sale and purchase
the judgments he did not act as the dgen
attorney OF Mercy, and, as the attorney
Mercer, I confess believed it; but
II in Court found against this testimony tt
cted in the sale and assignment of the ju
- ments, Mr.. G. did act as the agent of
hces Mercer, as well as the agent of Sta
cer- and Halback, and hence the judgmen
un- the Court setting aside the assignmen
neal the judgments to Mercer. 1t is quite l
- ural that the political friends of Mr..
verse, the authors of the publicat
n of complained of, should take the yiey
re is his conduct in this transaction, WI
,IIar must necessarily have influenced the m
80 of the Judge, also his political friend
ney' pronounce the Judgment, rather t
be- that they should accept my views in
lnati gument as the attorney of Mercer,
800 i suffered by the Judgment. and if t