Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-11-13
lanraster f,,telltge1lrer.
SATURDAY EVENING, NOV. ID, 1880
The ssLie'' Nailed.


The editor of the Neo Era in his
paper last evening says editorially:
The INTELLIGENcER, for about the for
ticth time, repeats its stale charge that the
editor of the New Era "goaded" Mayor
Stauffer into bringing criminal suit for
libel against the publishers of that paper.
or course, repeated assertions of a lie Oan-
not make it the truth but the fact is, the
editor of this journal never advised any
body TO bring libel suit.
Now mark how plain tale shall set
him down.
On February 2, 1875, the INTELLI-
GENCEE charged Mayor Stauffer with
taking illegal fees, and that thereby he
had drawn from the county treasury
hundreds of dollars to which he had no
shadow of right.
On the very next day the Express,
then edited by the present editor of the
Nep Eaa, said with reference to our
charge against Mayor Stauffer:
The article in the INTELL1GENcRR to
which We refer Was not only tissue of
the ordinary Misrepresentation peculiar
w q oSAiStiy pAACy ESL, SuSA do .JOuA
nal is, but it contained one OF
the most gross and unprovoked li6els cvcl
invented against a candidate by any news
paper now in existence in this city. It il
a libel cut out of the whole cloth, withou,
a shadow Of foundation or justification
We come directly to the libel it
self. = =
We take 1t for granted that Mayor Stauf
fer gciN 1or0mptly make has ODn justifcatio,
with our gushing ncighbors in the onl,
manner such a case admits Of, by giuin.
them an opportunity to make good their a!
legations before a tribunal where the reck
less assertions of newspaper boys will no
pass for facts and matter of record. But
it is our duty to say to the citizens of Ian
caster that there is not word of truth in
the above.
This was a distinct declaration tina
our charge was libel and notice t.
Mayor Stauffer that he must prosecute
it as such. His organ gave him plainl.
to understand that he had no alternative
A libel suit was g the only manner whicl
such a case admits Of" If this was no
advising him to resort to it we shoul.
like to know how such advice can b.
more positively expressed!
Moreover, we repeat that when w
met Mayor Stauffer before the tribuna
he had chosen for his vindicatiOn, h
shrunk from an investigation of TIN
facts and fled the tribunal of his owl
selection-a fact which we believe GU
accuser and his adviser has never put
lished to his readers to this day. No
has he made good his promise of Fet
uary II, 1875, that should the cour
in constituting the fee bill decide that Ii
and his advisers were mistaken in thei
construction, we pledge our faith to tn
public that he will insist upon returning
every dollar that may be ruled out by tn
authoritative judgment of the court.
For in order that that authoritatiy
Judgment could not be rendered-ad
verse as it would have been-the cas-
was sneakingly smuggled out of court
without notice to us and without GU
consent.
We recall this fact not to discGurag
the Ner Era in its promised cours
against illegal fee-taking. We wish
success. We will give it our most earn
est held. But we warn it against leay
ing the trail when the scent gets fresh
as it did in the case we have recalled
Besides the {" lie' ought to be properl
located in justice TO all concerned.