Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1880-09-08
The Radical SpOuter, Cor
nered.
Morgantown New Dominion.


munlca,ion. I address to The Morgan
town Post a rerbotim copy of the letter
herewith appended.
l send it to you with request to pub
lish it, because l am quite confident it
will never appear or be noticed in the
Post.
But want the people Of Mouongalia
to have at least one opportunity to dis
cover by what tactics the Post and It's
party seek to conduct campaign. For
q number Of years it has assisted IN
keeping Its party in the majority IN
your county, by game OF bluf-by ig-
noring and suppressing facts on one
side, and by Misrepresentation on the
other. Its readers are never permitted
to read but one side of the issues, and
its political opposents and their argu'
ments are treated With towering con-
tempt.
1 have, in a respectful manner, asked
it. IN the letter addressed TO it, to deny
or refute the charge against Gen. Gar
field, which 1 discussed in recent
speech at your place, and Of which the
Post" complained so bitterly, and
ask the readers of the Ne,c Dominion to
observe that it will do no such thing. Ii
does not dare attempt it, and yet 1t
will abuse and yillify any public speaker
who refers to the subject. The fol-
loving is The letter which have ad
dressed to the Post"
A CHALLENGE.
Messrs. Editors Post In looking
over the last issue OF the Post" | was
struck with the fact that Il large portion
OF one page is dsvotcd to crltclsmi o
one single subject oil the speech l re-
Gently made at the Court House il
Morgantown.
lake 1t that if any part of the speect
was effective, it was this to which The
'Postn makes such extended reference
and which is singled out Of an hour
desultory talk. The Post" does not
so intimate, but betrays its concern TO
the effect it might have, by directing al
its criticism to it alone.
The subject under discussion was tn
public and private character OF the Re
publican candidate for President, and
you report me as having made the as
sertion that 'Garfeldis a common thief.
l did not make that assertion or use
that language. l make a charge more
damaging to Gen. Garfield than that
and object principally to the mis-
represen tation because 1t Is less effectlv
than what l did say.
could not have Used the languag
attributed to me, because it would hay'
been irrelevant TO the subject unde
discussion and further than that,
weul5shot/ovon if L had peen dIsposo
to be untruthful, have made such al
assertion as that before that parlicula
audience, fer 1 recognized IL 1t man.
leading Republicans OF your county VIII
had houored me with their presence, IAN
whom | desired to treat with great re
spect, and was, therefore, specially
careful when referring TO their nomine
T for the Presidency. to utter no word no
doubly jus tilted aud fortified by prooi
1t would have been unjust and untru
for me TO have charged him with being
common thief" as no such accusa
ton, so far as l know, has been mad
against him.
What did say, in substance, was
that there is, perhaps, no common THE
or other criminal now in Jail, who wa
convicted upon evidence more conclu
: siye than that upon which Gen. Gar
field is charged with bribe taking i
high office.
regard this as grayer charge tha
, to saw Garfield is thief, because W
can sometimes almost justify the thle
who steals to satisfy the cravings c
hunger or 10 save starving family
but an official who gratiies ocly hi
avarice by accepting "a bribe, sells hi
honor outright aud spits IN the faces o
con6ding constituency.
ri But that which struck me most in tn
criticisms made by the POST ant
which must attract the attention OF th
most casual reader, and that i'll fact,
which it is my chief purpose to refer Is
that in all the space which the Post
: devoted 10 this subject, there is not Oh
sinqle sentence that attsiapts to refnte II
charge itsei fVhseh / made against Ge'
/ Garfield.
Now the charge is either true or fals'
. fit is not true. it is not worthy OF u
extended reference made to it by tn
Post" If it is false 1t can readily b
< snown, for it 10 a matter OF public recor'
1t would appear, therefore, TO be IL
a most natural as we'll as the most ete1
4 tual course for the POST and the Il
: publican press generally, il they belie'
] this common charge, which Is followlr
= Garfield through the campaign like
o ghastly spectre, to be false. that the
I'll would at once and forever squelch lt,1
e publishing the proof-thc record-upo'
Q which they rely to refute the charge
t there is any such proof,
Nevertheless the Post" IS silen
nor is it singular in its silence on til
head. There is not Republican pap
in West Virginia that has yet dared
: tackle the evidence upon which IN
| charge is predicatcd and give ito
readers. Tho leading Republican Q
IAIA