The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1884-10-08

broken down, if your client was
clothed with innocence as with a white
garment, If those who sought his des-
truction were guilty Of perjury and sub
ornation OF perjury, as you now as.
sert, you should have entered into his
defense with the strength of Hercules
and with the courage Of Ajax without
q Duckler, without a shield with the
sword of Justice in your right hand you
should have driven from the Court
House in shame and disgrace the enc
mics of your client who sought his des.
truction. Instead of doing this you al
lowed and advised your client
to pay the costs in the case, to-
gether with one hundred dollars to the
Prosecuting attorney and five hundred
dollars to the Williams who were swear
ing away the liberty and character of
your client.
Now, Mr.. johnson, kindly but plain
ly we wish to state that you should
thank Mr.. Metcalf and thank us for
defending you against yourself. II the
facts are as you state them, you sacri-
feed, betrayed and swindled your eli
ent. If your story is true, when you
found that the case against your client
had failed, instead of preparing for a
trial which would result in his acquit-
tai, you Immediately consented to,
and advised the distribution OF
all the available property the wife of
your client had in the world, to the
various parties who finally received it,
There is no escape from this conclusion
No wonder, that having taken such o
position, you wanted the flimsy excuse
that you told Mrs. Hinckley that there
was no case against her husband, but
even this flimsy excuse is unsupported
by single fact Metcalf says he
never heard of q threatened civil
suit; that he thought that there
was great danger Of your clients
conviction and that he so stated to Mrs.
Hinckley. The admitted facts in the
case refute your statement. Judge
Hale was fully informed as to the case
and reproved and reprimanded Mr..
Nye for having consented to the settle
mont. This, Of course, he would not
have done il whatyou now say had been
true. Above all, Mrs. Hinckley her.
self, in her affidavit, says that your
statement is wholly false; that she
never heard Of the civil case; that she
consented to the payment Of the money
because she believed that there was
great danger Of her husbands convic.
tion, and because she was SO advised by
her attorneys.
THE GAG RULE.
You offer as second reason why Re-
publicans should not vote for Mr.. Web
Der "the refusal of the convention to
hear his (Nye's) defense, and the en-
forcement Of the gag rule" So, Mr..
johnson, you deliberately take the po-
sition that the convention had no right
to decide this question for itself. You
arraign over seventy delegates before
the bar Of your displeasure and say to
them that they had no right to make
the usual limit Of presentation speeches
to five minutes. II the adoption OF
this rule was such an ohense as
to release you from the binding
effect Of the resolution adopted In the
morning session, as an honorable man
you should have taken your hat and
left the convention. You had no moral
rig gIt 10 remain and try with all the
power you possessed to nominate Mr..
Nye, and participate in the subsequent
animation of other candidates, unless
You intended to support the nominees
and all Of them.
But it is not necessary for us to en-
large upon this point, as q communica-
tion that is TO be found in another col.
umn from Mr.. Huckins. covers the same
ground, and most successfully exposes
the fallacies Of Mr.. Johnson's argd.
ment.
WAS WEBER A PARTY TO THE SETTLE.
MENTP
In another part Of "a Fair Hearing
the following language is used: "He
(Webber) was present at several, II
not all, subsequent interviews held by
Mrs. Avery, Terrill and Metcalf, or
Hinckley and Metcalf, and took part
in the same" This statement is abso-
lutely false. There is not the shadow
Of truth in it. On the contrary,
Mr.. Webber distinctly and abso.
lutely asserts that he was
present at none OF these
interviews; that he participated in no
consultations in reference to the settle
ment Of the case, and solemnly asserts
that he had nothing whatever to do
with the settlement of the said case;
that he was not consulted about
the settlement Of It; that his opin.
ion was not asked, and he is fully
sustained in this position by Mr..
Metcalf and by Mrs. Hinckley. His
relations, OF course, TO Mr.. Met
calf were such that he may have
been called upon for some slight service
In the case because Of Mr.. Metcalf's
physical inlirmities, but II so, his
rendering Of the said service was
purely and wholly perfunctory. He
might even have been In the office at
his own desk when some Of the consul
tations were taking place, although he
remembers no such occurrence, but his
bodily presence In the room, he being
employed with other duties and not par.
ticipating in any particular whatever in
the consultation, would have involved
him in no sort Of responsibility what,
ever. Mr.. johnson and. Mr.. Metcali
received the sum Of one hundred and
sixty.two and one-haf dollars each for
professional services rendered to Mr..
HiDckley; Mr.. Webber did not receive