The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-04-03
TO THE PUBLIC.

DR.. J. W. HOughtOn in the issue of the
Enterprise of March q, makes state
ment concerning myself that requires
reply. He says whatever information
Messrs. Webster and Wean may have had
in the first instance connecting me with
the authorship of an article on the
waterwOrks, which they assume to an
swer in the last issue of the Enterprise,
they were afterward told, and before
their articles were in type, that had no
connection with it."
Iregret that in justice to myself, l am
obliged to state that the accusation above
quoted, so far as / am concerned, is alb
sOlutely untrue.
When | wrote my article that appeared
in the Enterprise of the goth of March, |
was assured that DR.. HOughtOn was the
author of the article signed "W." My
article was in type and proof corrected
before heard anything to the contrary.
My latest information and from the high
est authority before the appearance of
the Enterprise, was that the article
signed "W' was the joint product of DR..
j. W. HOughtOn and his son, the distinct
impression being that DR.. HOughton was
the chief and responsible author. To be
more explicit, the editor fof the Enter
prise informed me that Elmer HOughton
set up the article in type and that DR..
HOughtOn brought up to him, from time
to time, manuscript for it; that during
the preparation Of the article for the press
space was left and that when Elmer
was asked what was to go into this space,
he replied, father is attending to that"
that when the article was finished, El-
mer's attention was called to the fact
that it had no signature. When he
asked "do you require signature?' and
the editor replied certainly, l under
stood that this was tObe a signed article;"
that Elmer said, Il will see about it,
and went below; that he returned and
asked if "W" would do; that the editor,
knowing that DR.. HOughtOn had previous
ly used "W" as a signature for cOntribu-
tiOns to the paper, replied that it would
be accepted.
The editor of the Enterprise also as
Sures me that before he issued the paper,
containing thearticles contributed by Mr..
Wean and myself, he called upon DR..
HOughtOn in his private office and said,
in substance, doctor, Elmer now claims
that he was the author of the article
signed "W." | have assured Messrs.
Wean and Webster that you are the au-
thor of that article and they have replied
with that understanding. Now, what
shall | do? You know that you furnished
some manuscript for that article. I saw
you debating portion of it to Elmer
here in your Office. You know that you
and Elmer sometimes work together up
on articles Of yOnrs. l gave these men
the assurance, in good faith, that you
wrote the article. What shall / dOY
There is yet time to fix the matter salts
factOrily, and that after few moments
thought, DR.. HOughton said, let them go
in" si
The editor Of the Enterprise also in
forms me that when Dr.Houghton offered
his reply, which appeared in the Enter
prise Of the 9th of March, he went to DR.,
HoughtOn and said in substance, DOC
tor, this is not fair, You are not treat
ing me cOurteously. I came to you be-
fore the articles by Messrs. Wean ant
Webster were printed and you said, "let
themgO in," knowing that | had as
sured them that the article to which
they were replying, was written by you
Having consented to their articles going in
with that understanding, it is not fail
to reply in this way" and that DR.
HoughtOn replied, - B, they have hi
me SO hard Imust reply"
DR.. HOughtOn'S willingness to assume
responsibility when called upon for de
cision, and,hi rapid fight to cover wheI
confronted by replies, may be justified
upon the theory that 'he who fights ant
runs away may live to fight another
day." but upon no other ground. Hi
sarcastic illusion to my corner on Ger