The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1890-02-13
pnsPnRApn ATTEMPT BY EDITOR
bKINhnh TO VlnDloAPm HIM
BmLr.

sKINNnh TO VlNDIoAPn HIM
bmLr.
Last evenings Repository contained
q card from Editor Skinner OF tho Mas
slllon Independent We make oil due
haste to print this card. II 10 exactly
40 follows;
A CARD FROM MR. aKINNEh AND THE
COMMISSIONERS.
The records show that criticism OF
the Commlasion IN the sewer appro'
priatIon matter commenced previously
10 the sending OF the bill aud could not,
therefore, have been actuated by the
fabe OF the bill itself, While AN abotraot
of the vote of tho county was attached
10 the proof OF publication the bill and
tho accompanying letter mention "taG
notice" only, which, being IN harmony
with the text OF the amended law under
which payment was sought, establishes
the fact that roo0mpenae was not de-
sired for tho insertion OF u news article,
but for certain legal advertising,
While there Is u dispute as 10 whether
or not the bill ought TO be paid II Ia u
legal rather than apersonal question,
ROIERT T.. SKINNER,
We believe the above 10 bo q true
recital Of the fact
j. W. WEARsTLRR,
j. U, KREi0ilnAuM.
The above card is certainly remark.
able production. In the frat place II
touches upon n matter OF no conse'
quence 10 the public, and a matter not
la issue before the public, and In the
second place, two Of our County Com
mlssIoners- one Democrat aud one Re-
publlcan-are called upon 10 Bign Mr..
Skinner's card, and they certify that
they believe MIR, Skinner, upon q Ques.
tion upon which there is record evil
dence, duly verified by Mr., Skinner un'
der oath.
Now lot us not get away from the
question ut issue.
MIR. Skinner makes out q bill for
printing the abstract OF votes OF Stark
county, and attaches that bill TO an af'
adavlt, and goes before II Notary Pub
lie and swears 10 lts correctness. The
Notary attaches his seal 10 the docu'
ment, and Mr.. skinner iiles the same
with the County Auditor, The same
Ia still on llle In the Office OF the Coun
" Auditor, and we wish any doubling
one 10 10 there and examine II, And
now MIR. Skinner writes card for the
public, and induces two Of our county
officers TO sign II, casting diocredit
upon his own ailldaylt, made under
seal and verified by q solemn oath. In
other words, Mr., skinner writes u card
discrediting his own AFFIDAVIT, and
fearing tho public viii not believe him,
induces two Of our County Commis.
sioners TO say they believe his signature
10 card, rather than bis oath, under
an official seal
Now the question ls, aud II ls tho
ouly question that has any vitality In
II. did Mr.. Skinner attempt TO loot the
county treasury This Ia the question,
and the only question. The claim, now
set up, that Mr.. skinner, when heSwore
TO one thing, intended 10 swear 10 an.
other thing, will not do, When q wit.
ness swears 10 anything In any court,
he 10 not allowed afterwards 10 write
card, saying that what he swore 10 was
not true, and that he intended TO swear
10 something else. Even card by two
able bodied county commissioners,
however sympathetic, saying the wilt
ness was laboring under an halluclna-
tIon when he swore his swear, will
not help out this kind Of witness
Even the claim, last made, by Mr.. Skin
ner, with the endorsements attached,
(seml.o0lcia), does not mend his case,
He Is still claiming pay for a Job not
ordered by any competent authority,
and for which he has no legal claim on
the county treasury. Hence we return
to our original proposition. While the
editor OF the Massillon Independent
was raising a row over the sewer busi-
ness, he was trying TO loot the
county treasury, In an illegal manner;
and we have the record evidence 10
nrnva n