Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1878-02-27

EDITOR REpUBLIcAN:-The communi.
cation of Mr.. E. Sweeney in last weeks
Democrat suggests multitude of conflicting
ideas The first and mos: prominent is tina.
the writer (Mr. S. has been hard pressed
and compelled to resort to invective and
blarney. The second, is one of disappoint-
ment in lack of ability to handle the pen.
But to business. After Messrs. Baxter and
Ballou had voted for the $1,000 Stoppen-
bach Jail "steal," he Sweeney "backed up
both Baxter and Ballou then as he will to
day" and it must have been ga steal" 9th
erwise he Sweeney would not have been
justified in voting against its allowance, and
after having proved by his own vote that
it was IA steal' he writes to Mr.. Moak: IL
will not accept nomination for supervisor
Baxter are nominated in the lst and Sd
wards whose aid and presence / deem
necessary to protect the interests of our city
as it should be protected" And yet be
did accept. Now here he demands the nom
inaton of two men "to protect the interests
of our city" land county, who had been
guilty of voting for $4,000 "steal." Mr..
5. refers to Messrs. Stacy, Gallagher and
Moore that he never spoke ill of Messls.
Ballou and Baxter. The question may be
asked, if the 5000 appropriation was 50
steal' why should he defend the men who
voted for it and even 20 50 far as to demand
their nomination "to protect the interests OF
the city" (and county, To undertake to
prove by Messrs. Stacy, Gallagher and
Moore that he had always defended Ballou
and Baxter (who had voted for this ''s:eap)
reminds me of the man who offered to prove
by thousand witnesses that they did not
see him steal the sheep. | do not wish to
express an opinion on the merits of Mr.
Storpenbach's bill tor extras, but it is a
notorious TACT that Mr.. Stoppenbach secured
the election of Sweeney as chairman at the
succeeding session of the Board. What for?
What MIR. Sweeney deemed to be "a steal"
(be voted against it, so of course it was a
steal) at the previous session he now votes
in favor OF, though be undertook to defeat
it by packing the committee ofinvestigation
he says so himself in bis letter, thus prov
ing that what he lacked the courage to do
openly he undertook to carry out stealthily.
Playing double as usual-the Craftsmanship
having been bestowed upon him to favor
the ''steal, !" and packing the committee
against the bill to set himself all right with
those who thought it was "a steal" He
says he did not vote for himself-that be
voted tor Mr.. Greene which may be con-
side-ed as something unusual, otherwise be
would not have deemed it necessary to
speak of it. No thanks to Mr.. Sweeney for
the election of so proper and able a man as
Mr.. johnson for supervisor, he (Mr. Sween-
cyl demanded the nomination of Mr.. Baxter
who had voted for the Stoppenbach "steal,"
it must have been steal because MIR.
Sweeney could not be induced TO vote for it.
Mr.. j. Prentice evilenty thinking that
Mr.. Sweeney was not capable of defending
himself, (be is not much out of the way) he
admits that ~. T. Moak can defend himself
hurres to the rescue and among other
things says: "his word is as good as his
bond;" not in a political sense, as many
democrats and republicans can testify. ellis
intellect towers as much above yours as
does mountain above a mole hill,' says
Prentice. If talking about "Falstaff in
buckram" and other similar nonsense, mis-
quoting the authors &c. constitutes "intel-
lect" then Mr.. Sweeney should be accepted
as "mountain" of "towering intellect"
otherwise, the proof is not forthcoming.
Again Mr.. Prentice says: "Hundreds of his
countrymen resort to him for advice and
they seldom fail to get it." yes, and some
Of them to their sorrow. Mr.. S. is not a
member of the Union League and yet very
strangely nearly all of 'his countrymen who
resort to him for advice vote the Union
League ticket, proving that his country
men" do not always live up to his advice
or that his teachings are identical with
those of the sorder." Mr.. Sweeney closes
with most pathetic appeal to the editor of
the Democrat, he says: III have done no
person in this city harm or injury" which
am convinced few persons in the COM
nunity can assert of themselves-sach men
are in great demand in heaven. Again ~
have never concealed anything from you in
relation to our county matters and officers"
was not aware that the editor of the Dem.
ocrat and insolvency were on such intimate
terms--what are those county affairs that Mr..
S.appears to hold as secret. II now ask as
friend, did you ever hear me say one word
against any of our supervisors? Did you
hear I eaid ANYTHING to others about them?"