The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1879-10-02

am obliged to indulge in this expose Of the
unfairness of my competitor. Horr. Per-
haps ought not to be disappointed, know
ing the kind of treatment that Hon. Col.
Herrick received at the same hands to de-
feat him and secure his own nomination, in
connection with the fact that was told by
one of Horr's most intimate friends that II
I did receive the nomination probably there
would be q most bitter fight. What die that
mean? Any bulldozing? Had not 1 as
good a right to accept a nomination unani.
mously rendered, unsought or unasked for,
from the Democracy, as Mr.. Horr had after
spending weeks Of labor, dollars Of money
in expenses, and any amount Of work that
Col. Nerrick and his friends call dirty. to
defeat a worthy citizen and soldier and force
himself, as Judge Curtis said, against the
wishes Of nine-tenths Of the Republicans Of
Ashland County-upon his party.
Does the gentleman claim he has owner
ship of our party as he or his friends claim
he had arranged six years ago with his to
take possession of the senatorship now.
Good mortgage. Who made it? Who has
the nextf Tell and save the people any
further tronble about voting or even hold
ing caucus. Now l did say to the gentle.
man that should not do anything but hon.
orsble political work IL did receive the
nomination, and l now repeat the same.
But do say that all public acts performed
by any candidate are public property after
he accepts the nomination aud he has no
right to object to the fullest and most scru.
thinking examination OF all such acts that
are connected, in a general way, with the
public.
With above facts before the readers I
leave you to judge who has been fair and
will approve. Truly,
ID. L. wADswoRTH.
P. S.-Statement made at cheese factory
In Orange was about the Dream and that
only, they charging that Chamberlain, of
Sullivan, was its author. said knew he
was not but did know who was. Statement
in the ENTERPRISE office alluded to that,
not article headed "Not q Dream" See
answer to r. A. Horr.
Mr.. Wadsworth seems to be lsboring un-
der a wrong impression or else Is seeking to
divert attention from the real question at
issue. The writer of the article signed "X"
never supposed he (Wadsworth) wrote
"Dream No. 9" He was well satisfied who
was the real author though not positively
certain. He never had o thought Of aiming
his remarks at the author OF the Dream, and
his denunciations Of the scurrilous and
slanderous circular were only aimed at the
charges made apparently in sober earnest in
the article entitled "This is not q Dream"
The other contained nothing rejecting on
Mr.. Horr's character and required no reply.
When Mr.. Horr published his statement
he knew who was the author of the Dream
but did not, in any particular, have refer
ence to it in his reply. Whether his version
of the Orange township matter is correct
the reader can judge as well as ourselves.
Admitting his statement to be true he can
not deny that he became an accessory after
the fact by indorsing and circulating them,
and has no reason to complain that he Is
held to the same responsibility rs the origi-
nal authors.
1t should be well understood that ne Re-
publican ever supposed Mr.. Wsdsworth was
the author of either article but it was sup
posed he was cognizant OF and a party to
the publication of the Miner, Parker & Co.
statement. But we accept his explanation
and denial and hold him to the same guilty
responsibility. 1t is very easy to demolish
o man of straw of our own setting up.