The Spirit Of Democracy

Untruthfulness Clinched about Cliques.

The last Herald has over three columns editorial trying to explain the charge of dishonesty which we fixed and proved upon it last week.
The editor as usual vapors about the wonderful things he has accomplished. Whether the editor has silly vanity enough to believe what he says in this respect or not, is not known; but it is known that others estimate the articles in which he professes to be doing such wonders at just about their worth- that they are the highfalutin ebullitions of a brain vindictive and reckless enough to do mischief, but too weak to accomplish it.
The editor in order to break the force of the charge which we proved upon him, gets statements from three gentlemen as to what Mr. Holliday and Mr. Koehler said. A portion of these statements gives a part of the conversation and suppresses the rest. The kind of testimony with which the Herald expects to escape from the charge is garbled reports of casual conversations. Anything under Heaven can be proved in the same way. It is no proof at all, and shows the weak shifts to which the Herald is reduced in order to bolster itself up.
What Mr. Holliday told to the editors, as the editor well knows, and as a portion of the gentlemen who undertake to state the conversation in the Herald know, was about this: That if an additional full set of duplicates had to be made out, then the additional expenses would be about $625. After further examination Mr. Holliday became satisfied that this would be a needless expense to the county, and he very properly determined not to make them. This the editor of the Herald knows, for he has it over the Auditor's own signature.
The difference between what Mr. Holliday said, and what the editor attributes to him is about this:
Mr. Holliday says, if it had been necessary to make an additional set of duplicates the additional expense would have been about $625; but it was not necessary.
The Herald states that he said "the salary has been increased $625."
For this we charged the Herald with grossly misrepresenting the Auditor, and we proved it.
The editor says the reason why he gave Mr. Koehler's statement without qualification, was, that the qualifications were "ridiculously nonsensical." To show what the editor's idea of ridiculously nonsensical is, we will exhibit his manner of proving what he says. He says:
"1st. If there is a special law preventing the Treasurer from charging this additional per cent. If there was such a law how triumphantly would it have been pointed out. There is no such law and that kind of a reservation is "stuff" and every one can see it."
If there is any meaning at all in the above bungled paragraph, it means that unless there is a "special law" to prevent the treasurer, he may charge an "additional per cent." The law for years has fixed the treasurer's per cent., and that law is still in force, yet the Herald editor says that unless there is a "special law" to prevent it the treasurer may charge an additional per cent. There is no change whatever in the law prescribing the treasurer's per cent., and yet the sapient editor of the Herald says that unless there is a "special law" prohibiting it the treasurer's per cent. will be increased. To doubt whether the additional per cent. can be charged, he calls "ridiculously nonsensical."
Mr. Koehler, again, says that if an additional per cent. is allowed by the law, (which law he says in his letter he has not examined) and "if in addition to this precisely half of the taxes were collected in December and the other half in June the additional fees would be about $360."
This the Herald calls "ridiculously nonsensical." The chances for the payments to be divided equally is about one to infinity, yet the Herald says it is "ridiculous nonsensical" to doubt that one chance occurring. The editor is either stupid enough, or knavish enough, to say that there is no misrepresentation in his version of the conversation with Mr. Koehler.
We will make a summary of the facts and the evidence, and the conclusion that the Herald has been both dishonest and untruthful is inevitable.
The salary of the county Auditor and Treasurer is raised $1,500 above what it has heretofore been. -Herald's first article.
The semi-annual tax law which increases the salaries of the County Auditor and Treasurer nearly one thousand dollars per annum. -Last Herald.
"By this legislation, according to the calculation of a democratic lawyer of this place the salary of the County Auditor and Treasurer is raised $1,500 dollars above what it has heretofore been." Herald's first article.
"The gentleman was Edward Archbold Esq."-Herald of the 20th.
"I have never yet made a calculation of the increased taxation consequent upon the enactment in question, and therefore never said that I had made a calculation. * * * * After my best efforts I cannot remember stating 'in conversation with a number of individuals' that 'the salaries of Auditor and Treasurer were about doubled' by the Governor's financiering. MR. ARCHBOLD's letter.
"The labor of the Auditor has been increased more than half and the salary has been increased $625."--What Herald says Mr. Holliday said.
"If an additional full set of duplicates had been required the additional expense in the Auditor's office would have been about $625: but the duplicates are so arranged that it is unnecessary."-See MR. HILL.'s letter.
"The emoluments have increased $360" What the Herald says Mr. Koehler stated to be the increased salary of the treasurer.
"If the Treasurer was authorized under it (the law) to charge on each settlement, on the first $1000 six per cent. on the second $1000 six per cent., and so on as when but one settlement was made; and if in addition to this precisely half the taxes were collected in December and the other half in June, then the additional fees would be about $360"--What Mr. Koehler did say.
There! If the Herald can hunt up men to relate portions of private conversations and suppress other portions in such a way as to escape from all the above evidence then it has a kind of mien for its purpose that all good people hope are scarce. There are no less than four examples of untruthfulness and dishonesty, proved point blank upon the Herald.
But the most pitiful part of the Herald's article is the whining about an attempt to 'crush' him. He does this to get up a little sympathy for the miserable position in which he finds himself. What would anybody want him "crushed" for? It is well known that he does as little damage to the Democracy as any other editor would, and makes more foolish blunders than any other half dozen. He seems afraid that a "clique" (beautiful spelling) have 'adopted the crushing system' against him. In the first place there is no clique here, as the editor knows; and if there was "crushing" him would be the last and the least business they could engage in. It is only his weak and reckless scribbling for the Herald that anybody would 'crush,' and it requires no clique to do that. So he need not whine about the matter, but let him come up to the controversy as a man should.

ABOUT THOSE CONVERSATIONS
We publish below at the request of the Auditor, a statement of John E. Hill giving the whole of the conversations, a garbled report of which appeared in the Herald. Mr. Hill is a young man whose strict integrity and rigid adherence to truth no man who knows him will doubt. This statement was not like the Herald's concocted so as to give just as much of the conversation as might answer a sinister purpose, but the substance of the whole.

For the Spirit.
Woodsfield, August 27th, 1858.

MR. J. S. HOLIDAY-Sir: You call upon me to state a conversation held between you and Warren Hollister in the Auditor's office, about the 12th day of August. I will state that I was present, and at work with you at the same desk, (being a clerk in the office,) and the conversation was about this: Hollister inquired of you what additional costs the semi-annual collection of taxes would make in this office, over what it was under the former law. You said you would tell him as near as you could but could not tell him the exact amount. You then made a calculation and told him that if another set of duplicates for the Treasurer had to be made in addition to the ones now making, the costs would be about six hundred and twenty five dollars; but that it might be something more or less, as the exact amount could not be told. You also call upon me to state a conversation at another time, between you and Hollister, about the 24th or 25th day of August, when Isaac Smith was present in the office before referred to. In answer I will say I was present at the time referred to, and Hollister asked you if you had not told him in the conversation above referred to, that the additional costs in the Auditor's office under the law for the semi-annual collection of taxes would be about six hundred and twenty five dollars. To which you replied, "Yes I did, provided another set of Duplicates like these, (laying your hand on the one you was then working at,) have to be made out," and you then stated that you considered another set unnecessary, from the fact that the manner in which you had made up the Treasurer's tax Duplicates; at the same time showing him one, and saying "here are the reasons why it is unnecessary. In this column is the amount due in December, here is the amount due in June, 1859; and this column contains the whole amount due for the year," and that the Duplicates were made as the law said they should be, at the same time getting the law and reading it to him, and for these reasons you considered another set of Duplicates unnecessary, as the Treasurer could use those already made, for the payment of taxes due in December, also in June, 1859: but that a small book, or sheet probably, would to be attached or given to the Treasurer for any taxes due in December and not paid, upon which penalty would have to be added, and thereby the costs of making another set of Duplicates would be saved. This is the substance of the conversations to which you refer, and in neither of these conversations did you say the additional costs would be $625 unless the additional set of Duplicates would have to be made.

Yours, &c.,
Jno. E. HILL.