Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 July 1884 — BLAINE’S DEFENDERS. [ARTICLE]

BLAINE’S DEFENDERS.

Well Kay That Candidate Ex* <laim, “ Sare Me from My Friends!” For Out of Their Own Mouths Shall They Be Con* demned. A Largely Attended Meeting of Independente in New York City. WHERE WHIi THE ANGELS GOT Since wicked Jim has won the same, Black Jack and htcrh and low. The qneetkm that arises is. Where win the angels go? "There's John D. Long and Friable Hoar, With Cabot Lodge in tow; And now that Blaine has won. we ask, Where will the angels go? 'The {dons Edmunds' worshipers Have had a uorrid blow; And. since the devil’s in the field. Where will the angels go? <Jeerge William Curtis, of New York, And Hr. Schnrz, also, ' Are ’'downed” by this catastrophe— Where will the angels go? -Ahl but It was a stormy day! And still the horrid blow Heaps at full force, and so we ask. Where will the angels go? —Boston Star. Blaine’s Lame Defense. While the Chicago Tribune has not as yet retracted one syllable of its onsalaaght on James G. Blaine in 4876, it has at last Attempted to make a defense for him against its own indictment. In a recent issue it seeks to -convict George William Curtis of intentionally misrepresenting the charges Against Mr. Blaine as supported by the ■“Mulligan letters." In five labored paragraphs it strives to explain that ■James G. Blaine did not barter and «ell a ruling made while he was Speaker •of the House of Representatives, for a p rticipation in a new railway enterJrise “in every respect as generous as [hej could expect or desire.” One of these will do as well as another to illustrate the character of the 'Tribune's -defense—its utter recklessness of truth And consistency of statement. It says: It was many months after the passage of "the bill that Mr. Blaine concluded to invest ■some money in the Little hook and Fort .Smith bonds, and be naturally sought to pro--cure them on the most favorafble terms. He applied to a friend of his (Fisher), who had had no Interest whatovor in the enterprise, -and expected to have none, at the time the land grant bill passed Congress, and finally -obtained the blook of bonds from a man (Caldwell) who was handling the enterprise, whom Blaine did not even know. It would :seem to be impossible to connect Blaine’s ruling with his subsequent Investment under these circumstances. This fact Curtis well knows but suppresses. No one has ever said Blaine’s ruling was made in anticipation of his investment. What is charged is that, having Aaved the bill from “sleeping the sleep -of death,” he shook that ruling in the face of Caldwell in order to be let into the enterprise, promising at the same time that he saw "many channels in which,” he wrote, “I know I can be "useful.” By a strange fatality, which -ever attends the tortuous course of falsehood, the Tribune of June 16, 1884, contained a dispatch from New .Haven, Conn., giving an interview with 001. Logan H. Roots, “who,” says the Tribune, “in 1869, when he was a Con•gressman from Arkansas, gained the •consent of Mr. Blaine, then Speaker, to make the ruling on the amendment to the Little Rook and Fort Smith Railroad bill, which as much as any other -act of Mr. Blaine’s has been taken as a text by his opponents.” Mark, Root •claims to have “gained” Blaine’s consent. When Blaine was pleading to be let into the enterprise he claimed that he suggested the point and sent his page to Gon. Logan to make it. In the •course of his interview Mr. Root said: I told him [LSalnej how important the road was to our country and how little we were -asking of Congress. He [Blaine| said that he •understood how we were situated, andehould ■like to see us through. And he did see them through, and Also saw them later. Again, in his New Haven interview, Mr. Root says: Three months afterward, when Congress lhad adjourned, he wrote to Fisher, one of the managers of the enterprise, asking that •so ii© of the securities of the road might be sold him at the same price paid by the original staners of the road. He mentioned the fact that he had aided me and that was ail. It was nothing understood or bargained; motbing but what was pure and right. This disposes of the claim that Fish•er had no interest in the road, and “expected none at the time the land-grant Bill passed Congress.” It is useless, however, to discuss this question with a newspaper or with men wno see only a question of “refined ethics” in Blaine’s •conduct in making merchandise of his ruling as Speaker. If any one’s moral perceptions are so blunted that he can- . not appreciate the scandalous impropriety of hawking about a duty done By a publio servant for personal aggrandizement, it is not worth while seeking to convince him that Blaine is not a fit man for President of the United States. But no right-thinking, pureminded man cau believe that Blaine’s transgressions against the common standards of moral responsibility are so slight, so harmless, so unintended, 4hat they can be set aside. Up to this •day Mr. Blaine has never dared to give to the publio all the letters he stole ■from Mulligan, whose possession of them led him to contemplate suicide.— 'Chicago Daily News, Ind.

Bad for Blaine. [New York special to Chicago Times.] The independent Republicans who cannot stomach Blaine and Logan met the honse of .Joseph H. Harper, the publisher, to-night. There they declared in speech and resolution that they would oppose the nominations of the Ohicago convention with might and main. They declared that if the Democratic party nominated such men as Cleveland and Bayard the ticket would receive their support. Cleveland’s name was received with cheers. The medtmg was called to order by Stephen P. Nash, and George William Curtis was made Chairman, and George W. Greene, of New York, and S. W. Grierson, of Brooklyn, Secretaries. Carl Sclmrz offered the following resolutions: Witwhbas, Wo are met in conference as

Republicans and independents to act in opposition to the nomination of J. G. Blaine for President and John A. Logan for Vice President of the United States; and Wh break, Those candidates were named in absoln e disregard of the reform sentiment of the nation, and represent political methods and principles to which we are unalterably opposed; jtiesotvea. That it is our conviction that the co ntry will be better served by tHeir nomination than by supporting them. Hesolctd, 'that we look with eolioitude to the coming nominations of the Lemocratic party. They have the proper men, and we hope they will put them before the people for election.

tusoboed. That a committee of twenty-five members be ai pointed tj take without delay suitable measures for rallying and organizing the Republicans and independents dissatisfied with the nominat on of Blaine and Logan, with a view of holdin : at as early a day as possible a general Republican conference for the purpose of per.ectirg such further steps as may be found advisable for the e i pres-lon and effective enforcement of our views of the public interests. Hes-Aoed, That this committee be appointed by the Chair,and that it have power to add to its number. In advocating the passage of the resolutions Mr. Schnrz said that the Boston Independents, as the representatives of a large constituency, had secured 1,600 signatures to the call for their meeting, and therefore they could properly claim to speak for those who bad signed the call. There were great numbers of Republicans and Independents throughout the State who would gladly avail themselves of an opportunity to express their opposition to Blaine by joining any movement which promised concerted action. Moorefield Storey, of Boston, said that the origin of the Boston meeting was in the committee appointed by the Boston Reform Club, which happened to be holding its meeting when the news of the Republican nomination, was reoeived. A call was at once circulated, and 2,000 responses were received from the best Republicans. The Independents sought to unite in order to rebuke corrupt methods and corrupt men in politics. They proposed to vote generally for Republicans, but were willing to join the Democrats in putting Cleveland or Bayard in the Presidential chair. Organization was necessary thronghout Now York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, .Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Maine. Chairman Curtis, in introducing Mr. Wood, of Philadelphia, said that the independent movement had already begun to make its way in Pennsylvania. Mr. Wood said that he could not speak for the rest of the State, but in Philadelphia it was not true that the Independents were for Blaine, but on the contrary scarcely one had declared for him. Mr. Wood read a letter from Henry C. Lea, the Philadelphia publisher, declaring very strong in favor of the independent movement. George P. Sawyer, of Buffalo, said that a committee of the best men of Buffalo stood ready to lend their aid to the movement. Henry Hitchcock, of St. Louis, said it was not a party movement, but a protest against the abuse of party power. Col. T. W. Higginson said that the protest was for the benefit of the Republican party, which it was clear could not secure the electoral votes of Massachusetts. Charles R, Miller said he had found in Connecticut many old-time Republicans who were greatly dissatisfied with the nominations, and who were only waiting to see what the Democrats would do. Jackson S. Schultz said he did not feel like supporting a rotten candidate on a rotten platform. Carl Schurz said that the German vote would be largely against Blaine, and that the campaign must not be Under Democratic auspices, but as an independent Republican movement. Congressman Lyman said that since the Boston conference many Democrats had shown a strong desire to learn what Democrat could catch the independent vote. Ex-Gov. D. H. Chamberlain, of North Carolina, said that the present crisis had not been equaled since the civil war. The basis of good society was threatened by the chance of success of such candidates on such a platform. He would vote for any good Democrat to save political morality in America. The resolutions were adopted unanimously. Mr. Curtis, in closing, said: “It must be a long pull, it should be a strong pull, and we are agreed that it shall be a pull altogether.” Letters sympathizing with the object of the meeting were read from B. H. Bristow, ex-Gov. Solomon, H. A. Oakley, H. M. Alden, Prof. Felix Adler, Frank Fuller, and Henry Ward Beecher. Mr. Beecher wrote: “Put me down against Blaine every time in letters two feet long.”

Platform “Taffy.” It is amusing to witness the ecstasies of some of the Republican journals over the remarkable document which is called the “platform” of the Chicago convention. The Tribune, of that city, hitherta in favor of free trado, fairly glows with enthusiasm over the plank which is intended to satisfy the protectionists, and says it is “one of the most skillfully drawn tariff planks that have appeared in any political declaration of principles for many years.” Whether this judgment is sound depends on the object of a tariff plank in the platform. If the object be to say something without committing the party to anything, the plank is indeed “skillBut if the object is to define the party position, and outline the party methods, so that those who vote can do so intelligently, the plank is wretchedly drawn. Take, for example, the paragraph whioh the free-trade Tribune finds pre-eminently “prudent and judicious:” “The Republican party pledges itself to correct inequalities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus, not by the vicious and indiscriminate procoss of horizontal reduction, but by such methods as will relieve the taxpayer without injuring the labor or the great productive interests of the country.” What does all this mean ? It is very plain and outspoken as to results. The party is going to correot the inequalities of the tariff. It is going to reduce the surplus. And it is not going to resort to horizontal redaction. That is clear enough. But how is it going to work? Has it some plan which theater can compare yith horizontal reduction and by comparison form a judgment as to its merits ? Not at all. It has merely some conveniently vague and mythical “methods” which are to “relieve the tax-payer” without injury to the labor

l or the great productive interests. An<l what guaranty has the labor or whai i guaranty have the productive interest; | that these “methods” will be effective ’ What are they ? If the convention knew they would produce the results pledged, it must have known what they were. It must hava had knowledge of their suc- : cessful trial somewhere, at some time | Did it have such knowledge ? If so, i why did it not pat that knowledge into the plank and invite intelligent support? The convention had no snoh knowledge. The plank is merely a specimen of platform “taffy.” It is skillful and jndicious merely in seeming to promise something without really promising anything. For if the “methods* do not prove effective—as they are always sore not to—the party cannot be held responsible for its failure to achieve the results for which the methods are intended.—Free Press.

How the Plumed Knights Will Be Divided. Of course the different organizations of Plumed Knights will bear different names, and it naturally follows that among the favorite names will be the Tattoed Knights. These will be clad in akin-tight costume, the better to display the tattoed figures upon their persona, commemorative of the heroic exploits that have been recorded in the grand career of their leader, such as the Fort Smith Railway land-steal, the Warren Fisher job, the Mulligan business, the Peruvian gnano swindle, etc., etc., etc. On the Pacific slope the Plnmed Knights of the Invioible SandLot will be a favorite name, and in New York and some other sections the Plumed Knights of the Unconquerable Tail-Twisters will inolude many of the most enthusiastic of all the rascals that will be impelled by the lust of “loot and booty” to enlist in the new crusade to snatch the holy sepulcher of the spoils from the hands of'the reforma-, tory infidels, hypoorites, and pharisees. That it will be an enthusiastic crusade cannot be doubted bv any who have witnessed the enthusiasm of a pack of ravening wolves pursuing the hunter that has bagged a savory venison.—Chicago Times.

Young Republicans at Work. The Young Republican Club of this city have already taken preliminary steps, through the proper committee, toward dealing with the Chicago nomination in a manner worthy of the claims of the organization to conservatism and independence in politics. To this end they propose making an impartial and exhaustive examination of the charges against James G. Blaine. If they find the charges are disproven to the satisfaction of the investigators it is possible that the clnb may indorse the party ticket. If, on the other hand, the truth of the charges is established, the organization will, in all likelihood, repudiate the action of the national convention. The result of a dispassionate investigation into the character and record of Mr. Blaine can not be doubted. He is not the figure to stand upon the platform which the young Republicans have erected for themselves. —Brooklyn Eagle (Ind.).

Why It Opposes Blaine. 1. He is the leading and most vigorous Republican representative of dangerous political methods and practices. 2. (When Secretary of State) he showed himself a most dangerous guide of foreign policy. 3. We also oppose him because his personal character has been for years under grave suspicion, which has been materially strengthened by his havior in regard to the charges so often brought against him. He has been presented before the country under circumstances in which no man’s honor could escape unless the most complete explanation were forthcoming; but, instead of explanation, he himself has been content with bravado or with shuffling, and his friends have been content to abuse or ridicule those who demand that a public man’s honor should be without reproach.— Boston Advertiser.

Massachusetts a Doubtful State. Massachusetts must be regarded as a doubtful State and corresponding efforts made to secure its vote. New York is always closely contested in Presidential elections, and this year the independent Republicans represented by the New York Times, New York Evening Post, and Brooklyn Union will have unusual provocation to indulge their constitutional “kicking” propensities. Connecticut and New Jersey must be classed with New York and Massachusetts as doubtful States. In these four States the Republican party must fight its battle this year.— Buffalo Commercial-Ad-vertiser (Rep.).

Not Reassuring to Blaine. That Republican paper, the Springfield Republican, says: The voice of the patriot who was so busy assuring us that Blaine would be nominated, when the chances were really the other way, seems now to be turned upon Ohio and Indiana, and is telling bow very certain the Maine man is to carry them, and how he can be elected without New York. If the political persons who talk with their mouths are wise, however, they will on to New York for the present. Without that the Republicans must carry every other Northern State to win, and there is hardly a possibility of suoh a thing happening.

The Turn in the Road. The whirligig of time frequently brings sudden opportunies of revenge. When Seojetary Folger was struck down by a revolt in New York that was encouraged by Mr. Blaine the Republican friends of the Secretary hardly imagined that their turn would come so soon. —Philadelphia Record. The national Republican platform thanks only the “Republican” soldiers apd sailors of the late war. The framers probably reasoned that the Democratic soldiers and sailors did their duty without expecting any thanks.