Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1885-01-23
COMMUNICATION.
For the SENTINEL.

For the SENTINEL. lE{
Mr.. Editor: I'm your editorial of Janu-
arg. 10, 1885, you ask, "Does Mr.. Prettyman
propose to deceive the people by confound-
ing facts ?" answer, No-the facts are ex-
actly what wish the people TO know.
nowhere, during this controversy, under
took TO say or to make the impression that
the 5000 paid me by the County Commits
sioners was for the General Index for tue
aotOle century What said on the subject
was, 81 have been paid 5000 on account of
the ao0rjt IN question:" and / suppose that ev-
erybody except the writer Of the Sentinets
editorial, (whoever he may be,) understood
that the Index for the aolt0le century was not
tie aoork in question" But this is trivial. /
hasten to the main question. The only issue
concerning my reputation is whether
charged indi0td'tals presenting deeds for
record, for making General Indexes, pre-
viously to June, 1888, collected the money
therefor from them, and then also charged
the county for the same work and collected
pay for It from the County Commissioners.
| If / so charged and collected tiDsce for the
same work, my reputation ought TO suffer.
have, in my letter "To the Public" most
emphatically denied ever having, prior TO
June, 1883, charged or collected from indi-
viduals one cent for said work.
The Sentinel, nevertheless, in its editorial
of January 10, 1885, seems to assert that it
was "lr0gen" that have so been paid twice.
The proof 1t refers to seems to be, LIST, two
| quotations from the opinion of the Court OF
Appeals, neither nor both of which prove
any such thing. And as the Court of APP
peals was considering only the lao, and not
the facts, and was authorized to decide only
questions of law and not questions of fact
il could not prove, by its opinion any ques-
ton of fact-this alleged proof fails.
The I'd alleged prO9f Of the SentineFs
apparent assertion was that its Information
was derived from his (my) most experienced
deputy, Mr. George r. Braddock."
On the morning of the issue of said Sen
tiaeI, before HAD in any manner communi-
Gated on the subject with Mr.. Braddock, be
voluntarily handed me the following state
ment, in writing, viz:
81 see the Sentinel, in general terms, uses
my name in connection with certain infor-
nation impaired to them concerning the
controversy about the Index business. /
'nfess that do not understand what il
means, nor do feel the least moved by its
misrepresentation, as | have conscience
void of offence in this matter. My reaec-
tons upon the subject, SO far, fail to recall a
formation to any person connected with the
Sentinel office, or to anybody else, as have
been particularly guarded when asked any
thing about it, and invariably referred the
inquirer to you for such information as they
might desire about the business Of the Office.
"Yours truly. GEO. r. BRADDoCK."
| The Sentinel has failed to inform the pub
lie, as requested, who wrote its editorials on
the subject in question.
Now, whilst the Sentinel, in my opinion
evidently intended to impress the public
with the idea that / did charge twice for the
same work in making General Index, il
might, perhaps, seek to construe its asser.
tons otherwise. | now ask the Sentinel tc
state explicitly, in unmistakable language
whether it does mean to say, and does assert
that | did ever charge and collect pay for the
same work, in making any General Index
tioice-viz first from individuals presenting
deeds for record, and then from the Coun
ty Commissioners.
f. B. PRETTYMAN.