Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1902-08-28
Mr.. Poffenberger's Corrections.
SHEPHERDsTowN, W. VA,


Mr.. II. l.. SNYDER-DEAR SIR I'm
reply to card in your paper OF the l4th
| inst, will show wherein you misstated
the facts on the porch question. In
| your paper some time ago you stated
that the question Of Mr.. Beltzhoover's
porch being too wide was brought up in
| the former council and ignored. Now,
| if Won had examined the minutes OF
March II, you would have seen where, on
| complaint, the council ordered the street
com mittee 10 measure Mr.. Beltzhoo-
ver's porch and report at the next meet
| ing Of the council. At the meeting of
| the council on the 4th of April you will
see report of committee wherein they re-
port that they measured porch and that
! II was five feet, eleven and One-half
inches wide, when the ordinance says
| that it shall not be more than four feet
wide. Now, in your paper you stated
| that il was only few inches over the
regulation width. Now, you must adj
nit that that was not a correct state
ment. In regard to the law on the
width of porches. If the law was lob
solete." as you stated in your paper,
why did the council, which revised the
| ordinances in 1897, not leave II out, as
they did some others. The law is in
| full force for some people TO com
ply with. Regarding the petition, you
stated that large majority OF the voters
signed it, Now, if you had examined
the petition, you would have found
there were not more than 30 or 50 voters
of the town on it, Now, we have POO
or more white voters in the town, indie
pendent of the colored vote. So you
can see how correct you were in that
statement. Now, in regards TO your
| charge that | admitted in council that
| was the complainant against Mr..
| BeltZhoover | will say right here that
YOUR charge is not correct In reply TO
| Mr.. Beethoven when he appeared be-
fore the council and said he had been
informed that was prosecuting him, |
replied that he was misinformed that
ali had done was 10 call the attention
of the street committee to his narrow
pavement in front of his property. |
never made any motion before the
council about it. This is correct
statement of the facts in this contro-
versy, and challenge any one to dis
prove. l.. W. PoFFENBERGER'
We cheerfully give place to Mr..
Pofenberger 8 statement. If ne has
helped his cause any by his card, he
is welcome to it. We fear, however,
like good many others who make in
cautious statements, he has put his
foot in it the deeper.
We still maintain the correctness Of
our assertion that the porch business
was practically ignored by the for
mer council. Mr.. Beltzhoovers porch
seemed to be hobby with Mr.. Pof-
fenberger and in sort of humorous
acouiescence with his desire the coun-
ell agreed to let it be measured. The
council, however, never took any ac-
ton looking to removal Of the porch,
nor would 1t have done so. SO much
tor misrepresentation No.
Mr.. Pofeube1ger's second complaint
is that the REGISTER said the porch
was only few inches over the regu-
lation width. What we really said
was that 1T extends trIhe over the
four-feet line. If this is misrepre-
sentatiou, we reckon we will have to
plead guilty.
About that obsolete law The REG
IsTER spoke of it as "a somewhat OBJ
solete law" Websters dictionary
defines obsolete az "gone into disuse ;
neglected disused. If that law
hasn't been neglected and disused,
then we mistake the meaning of words.
Numbers of porches have been built
in disregard of the ordinance without
the law having been pulled on them.
1t has been a dead letter, practically.
He next accuses the editor of hav-
ing said Of the petition that large
majority of the voters signed it. We
never said 1t. What we did say was
that "the petition Wa. signed by near
ly all Of the business men Of the town
and by property owners generally; :
and in another place we spoke Of 1t as
being "signed by most Of the large
property owners of the town; again,
"a very large proportion of the prop
err, owners and nearly all of the bus
mess men O. he town We never
said large maJoriy of the voters
signed it. When Mr.. IvGopberger
starts out to correct Misrepresentation
be mustn't get his own facts so badly
mixed with false statements.
We do not care to make the issue
with Mr.. Pofenberger as to whether
or not he was the complainant against
Mr.. Beethoven. We will leave that
to the public to decide upon by what is
known Of the facts in the case.
II never made any motion before
the council about it, says Mr.. Pof-
fenberger. In the official report Of
the meeting Of the council of April
l4th we find this item "On motion Of
Mr.. Poffenberger, the council ordered
Mr.. Beltzhoover and the Misses Ma
gruder to have their porches changed
to comply with the town ordinance,
the work to be done within sixty
days" Comment on this statement
is unnecessary.
If Mr.. Pofenberger wants more
space in the REGISTER he may have
it. But we advise him to be more
careful of his public and private
charges Of Misrepresentation before he
rushes into print. He hasn't shown
up well in trying to subStantiate his
statements so far.