Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 October 1858 — That Letter Acknowledged! [ARTICLE]

That Letter Acknowledged!

“THE CAT LET OCT OF THE BAG!” LET THE THIEF GO! The letter we published two weeks ago, from an Old-Liner in this place to a gentleman in Indianapolis, has created great excitement. Some of our Old-Line neighbors were almost wild with rage, and they went about the streets calling the editor of this paper a “liar,” and their organ took up the cry and flung the epithet at us. Whenever any two of them met, one would say,“Davies is a liar,” and the other would snv, “Yes, he’s a d—d liar!” and among the busiest ones'* in these delectable street-dialogues was Mr. Snyder. We informed this gentleman last Tuesday that he was not the one charged with writing the letter, and he went ■straight and offered SSOO reward for such a letter with his name attached to it, and repeated the offer in his speech that afternoon. Was that not brave? On Wednesday morn- j ing we informed a young gentleman, the first Democrat who had the manliness to ask us who did write the letter, that Jacob Markle was the author of it, but that we could not procure it until frauds were committed; and within an hour handbills were stuck up, signed by Snyder and Markle, offering a reward of SIOO for a letter written by either of them to any one to send ditchers into ! this county. So, after we had said that the ' letter could not be procured unless frauds ; were committed, Mr. Markle became bold enough to offer SIOO reward for its production. Wc, then, in the paper, “dared them to place the money in the hands of HONEST MEN!” which they did not see fit to do, and the Expositor came out on Friday morning and pronounced the whole thing false—a fabrication. Now, let us see how much truth and how much falsehood there is in this letter, and j on whjch side the truth or falsehood is: 1 Last Friday evening Mr. Markle stated to us in this office, in the presence of Judge Milroy and our workmen, in substance as follows: “He did not write the letter spoken i of, but had written a letter about four weeks \ ago to Wm. A. Patterson, of Indianapolis, who had a contract for ditching in this county for $2,000; that the time for the contract had nearly expired; that it was then favorable weather, and he had better attend to it immediately; that there was work enough laid out for one hundred and fifty extra hands. He also said that he (Markle) had no interest in the matter, except a desire to inform the contractor of the way matters stood* and he also said that Mr. Snyder was the agent of Mr. Patterson, arid had been for j two months—perhaps longer—and that ho (Snyder) neglected attending to it. The contract will expire sometime in November.” Ho, after all, what we stated was the truth, according to the statement of Mr. Markle himself, although he signed a handbill offering SIOO reward for the letter. We asked him why he did not make the above explanation in the Expositor of Friday morning, and he replied that he did not know that the authorship of the letter was imputed to him until Thursday night. We then asked him how he came to sign the handbill on Wednesday morning, if he did not know of it Until Thursday night! This was a stumper, and he answered it by saying he had understood, or it was hinted, that he was the author! His memory was very short not to remember the letter which he | now acknowledges to have written. It is fair to draw probable inferences from ■ his statement, and we proceed to do it: David Snyder, the agent of Mr. Patterson, had neglected attending to the business in time, which, if he had have attended to it two months ago, would not require more than a dozen hands to finish the contract in time. Mr. Snyder has been looking for the nomination for some months at least, and he neo- ° i lected to attend to the work when it would | require but a dozen hands, and waited until oue hundred and fifty were required to complete it. No skullduggery here, we suppose. About four weeks ago, as Mr. Markle acknowledges, he wrote to Mr. Patterson that there was work enough laid out for one hunared and fifty extra hands. Allow two weeks to procure this large number of hands, and we have two weeks previous to election. Again, this number of hands, at ninety cents a day, (the average wages, we believe,) would earn the $2,000, the amount of the contract, in fifteen days. Allow some loss time for bad weather, and they would complete it in at least three weeks, which would keep them employed until after election. In our opinion, it would have been better to have commenced the work two months ago, with a limited number of hands, than to postpone it until it would require one hundred and fifty about election time, when the one hundred and fifty, as soon ns they had voted and served the ends of the wire-workers, would be thrown out of employment—at least, it would have been the more honorable course, and people would then have no chance to talk about the matter. We hope, after this explanation, that some of our OldLine neighbors will now refrain from calling the editor of this paper a “liar.” oO“**lndependeat of other objections to the submission of entire Constitutions directly to the people, how can an intelligent vote be given by those who attempt it!”— Jesse D. Bright.