Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1883-09-01
PLEADING THE BABY ACT.

controversy with it, ana sought
none. It's attack was not only un-
called for, but ungentlemanly and
vulgar. We took occasion, as we
generally do when attacked, to strike
back. The result was that the party
making the attack began to whine
like a whipped spaniel. In his reply
last week he pleads the baby act.
He didn't know it was loaded. He
was SO stunned that he would not
have noticed it at all had not some
friends chow considerate these friends
were to take him in charge) insisted
that he must say something further,
We rather think that they, as we'll as
himself, will wish he hadn't said it.
We propose, in the shortest possi'
BILE space, to pr0ue that the fellow is
either utterly ignorant of what he
has been writing about or is first
class liar. He can take either horn
Of the dilemma he likes.
In the first place he says that Mr..
Linthicum made mot ion in the
council for the appointment of a
printing committee that the motion
was passed and the Mayor appointed
Mr.. Linthicum. This snot so. TIE
fact is that Immediately after the
adoption of Mr.. Linthicum' mo-
ton, Mr.. Whitson moved that the
printing committee consist of one
and that Mr., Linthicum be appoint
ed. The motion was adopted, and
Mr.. Linth icum became the commit
tee by the action and vote OF the
council, and not by the appointment
of the Mayor except to carry out
the decision of the council. For the
truth of this statement we appeal to
every member of the council. So
much for that.
Now for an examination of this
fellows 'facts" in regard to print
ing. He cites the publication of the
Charter Amendment as an example.
He says the Herald charged SEW.
ENTEEN DOLLARS for publish
ing it one time, and that the other
two papers (the Independent and the
Statesman charged $25 for the same
publication. Now the truth is that
the Independent charged and was
paid only FOURTEEN dollars for
publishing the Charter Amendment,
while the BOBBY of the Herald adj
mts that he charged SEVENTEEN
dollars, with the further admission
that that amount was, legally, $6,25
too much, according to his construc-
tion and belief. Now, what do the
Taxpayers think of this assumed
advocate of their interests. There
is no getting around this fact. He
admits that he charged SIT for pub
fishing the Charter Amendment,
while the record of the Clerk of the
Corporation will show that the IN
dependent only charged $l4 for The
same work.
But to cap the climax, he says he
charged SIT when he knew the law
would not permit him to charge but
$10.75. He ought to be indicted
for swindling. AT any rate the cor
poration ought to demand that he
refund the $625 that he says he
knowingly oyercharged, and the
further amount of So which is in eX-
cess of the bill of the Independent.
There can be no mistake about this.
This is what he says :
I'VE have no excuse to make for the
several dollars we charged over and
above what the law allowed, only Civ
ing the instance Of what might have
been saved by a printing committees
Now let the printing committee
demand that this fellow return to
the corporation treasury the amount
which he admits he took without
warrant Of law. 1t is his own con-
struction of the price and the law
governing it, and he ought to be
made to disgorge. We do not say
his construction is right, but if he
believed it right he is criminally
guilty in taking from the corpora
ton treasury the amount Of Sc. %,
which he says "was over and above
what the law allowed"
Now isn't this a pretty predica'
ment for bowling performer" to
get himself into ?" If the INDIE
ppNyDENrT had CHARGED dOubla the