Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1880-07-03
PERSONAL.

. In the last Issue Oh the Statesman,
Eichelberger, smarting under what
he conceived to bea non-recognition
of his pre-eminent Importance by the
active Democrats who arranged for
the ratification meeting at the Court
house, Monday night, vents his
spleen by personal attack upon me.
The Eichelbergers refused to have
anything to do with getting up the
meeting announced in advance that
they did not intend to be present,
giving as a reason, that it would not
be a Hancock meeting, because they
did not get it up, we suppose, but
was gotten up by certain leaders for
their own Qualification, and to de-
prive them 1.-THE Eichelbergers) of the
honor and merit of having Hancock
nominated. Now mark you, these
were their reasons, given in advance
of the meeting, land before they
knew who would be chairman, vice
presidents or secretaries, for absent
ing themselves. After the meeting
was held, they take another tack,
and refuse to publish the proceed
ings, and declare that their opposi-
tion was because I was made one of
the secretaries. The inconsistency
of the two positions is too apparent
to need calculation. The guise is
too thin. They imagined that in
some way they had been snubbed !;
that the ratification ought not to
have been held unless they managed
and directed it, They were the only
original, simon pure, regular old DR..
Jacob Thompson Hancock men in
the county, and everybody else ought
to take back seats. Everybody else
didn't take back seats, and the Eich.
elbergers sulked away. After rehec-
ton, they saw that they must have
some better excuse for their action
than the real cause, and hence the
attack upon me, based upon the fol-
lowing article which appeared in the
INDEPENDENT some months ago:
"The Hancock boom for the DEM
ocratic presidential nomination in
1880, will not boom worth a cent.
The Democrats impaled General
Hancock when they so vigorously
denounced the judicial murderers'
of poor Mrs. Surrat. Gen. Hancock
was member of the court which
convicted her, and concurred in the
finding. Whether right or wrong,
the Democrats at the time put them
selves so squarely on the record in
denunciation of the court which con-
victed her, that they would now find
it very troublesome explaining away
the inconsistency of putting a men,
Der of that court at the head of their
presidential ticket. But there is no
use in discussing the matter. They
are not going to do it," asras.
Eichelberger asserts that my APP
pointment as one Of the secretaries
of the meeting, in view of the above
article having at one time appeared
in the INDEPENDENT, is an insult
to General Hancock. If the insult
was to the Eichelbergers, we should
say nothing aboutsit, but as we would
not intentionally insult brave SOL
der like General Hancock, we ask
his pardon-not at the instance of
Eichelberger, who, ne0destlyl says he
is "the only defender Gen. Hancock
possessed in West Virginia, "-but
because we are always ready to repair
a wrong.
| The INDEPENDENT not being a
party organ, gave the current Opin-
ions in regard to the chances strength
and weakness of the various candi-
dates for both the Democratic and
Republican nomination for the preSi-
dency. A large number of Demo-
cocks nomination, urged the Surrat
matter as point of weakness, and
in the discussions of the availability
of their own favorites, asserted that
Gen. Hancock was a member of the
commission which tried Mrs. Surrat,
and concurred iu the finding. That
such was the belief of many, it is on
ly necessary to state that since his
nomination 1t has been found neces-
sary to make thorough examination
of the facts in the case, which we are
glad to state completely vindicate
Gen. Hancock of any other part or
voice in the matter, except as a SOL
der sworn to obey, he carried out
the finding of the commission and
gave orders for the execution.
In the Washington Capital of last
Sunday, / find an interview with
Judge John Clampett, the leading
counsel for Mrs Surratt. In this