Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1881-06-21
BANDYING EPlTHETs.

A Congressman ana IN E0ltOr IN AfmSs
Congressman Beltzhoover, whom the
Philadelphia Press charged with attempt
ing to influence the vote of the members
of the Legislature on the insurance bill,
sends to the Press the statement of the two
senators and five of the representatives OF
his district declaring that he had said
nothing to them on the subject of the bill.
One of the remaining representatives OF.
his district was absent from the House
during the passage of the bill on account
of sickness and the other two, though
not heard from, the Rress is confidently
invited to interview on the subject. MIR.
Beltzhoover adds his own emphatic denial
of any interference Of any kind on his
part in the matter of the insurance bill,
and concludes as follows
When you charged me in your paper
with lobbying against the insurance bill,
and reiterated the charge after my denial,
you lied wilfully, maliciOusly and deliber-
ately. You lied like every common
mountebank lies in plying his trade to
make personal, petty, selfish point. 10
verify this challange you to sue me for
libel, and hereby waive all technicalities
as to whether calling you liar in this un
ambiguous language would be libelOus. II
you convict me of libel in calling you
wilful, malicious and vulgar liar will re-
sign my seat in Congress. If you do not
sue, or sueing, fail to convict, you should
step down and out Of one of the most hon
orable and responsible callinss among
men.
Very truly, ETC.,
F. E. BELTzHOovER
The editor of the Press in response de-
nies to retract its charge, Notwithstanding
| that Mr.. McCachan and Mr.. Rhoads, two
of the legislators whom it put forward rs
witness of its charge, certify that they
have no knowledge of it because it al
leges that they both told its reporter pre-
viously that Mr.. Beltzhoover was lobby
ing against the bill. Under its showing
these legislators have told contradictory
stories which would seem, at least, to
nullify their testimony in the matter and
leave Mr.. Beltzhoovcr's denial uncIlal.
lenged. The editor winds up as follows :
We do not care to handy epithets, but,
in view of his own position, his mock chal-
lenge to a libel suit is ludicrous. Upon
his own reasoning why doesn'te he bring
suit against the Press? For nearly year
he has been stamped as a convicted liar,
and tho offence for which he is arraigned
in this case is in keeping with the brazen
falsehood by which he forfeited all man.
hood and stood gibbeted before the whole
land. We have done our part toward put
ting the brand on him, but he has by re-
fusing tine very test which he himself pro-
poses done still more to fix it ineffaceably
upon his brow.
| The disinclination of the Press to handy
epithets is not very conspicuously illus
trated in this paragraph manifestly but
there is room for question as to whether
it correctly appreciates who, under the
case as it stands, is stamped as con-
victcd liar, " arraigned for brazen false
hood, 4" gibbeted before the land with
"a brand" put uneffaceably upon his
brow On the libel question honors are
easy neither party ardently embraces
the open opportunity.