Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 September 1884 — In Re Blaine [ARTICLE]

In Re Blaine

The press devoted another column yesterday to criticisms of our statement touching Mr. Blaine’s libel proceedings and explained the reasons which induced Mr. Blaine to discontinue piosecution against us by indictment—the substance of which is that he was hampered in regard to evidence by that form of prosecution and that by a later libel law he wo’d be enabled in a civil suit to “obtain the prosecution of a judicial condemnation of the slander,” to use the language of the press—a “protection” which ne appears never to have invoked. Why he began the prosecution only to come to so lame a conclusion, even the press does not pretend to know. We know, or at

least have no doubt why it was. done. It was to keep an indictment hanging over us during the ensuing campaign; but when we wrote and published “A Hasty Trip to Androscoggin.” copying tlie indictment in full, the prosecutor began to appreciate the unpleasant dilemma in which he had placed himself. The real reason why he dropped it.was because he didn’t want to try it. , Bythe way, as published in the Press, Mr. Blaine’s letter is without date. The nol pros was entered September 10,1859; the letter did not appear in the Advertiser until more than two month later. November 18. vVas it written then because the prosecuting officer on thinking it over, wanted record evidence to show why the prosecution for so grave, alleged offense had been so incontinently dropped? There are but two points in the editorial criticism that need a word from us. The editor seems to suppose that more than twenty-nve years ago necessarily meant September 12,1857 —which is almost twenty-seven years. An editor sometimes learns several things in less than the nearly two years that intervened. The second point, virtually, that we could not honestly and sincerely state that we knew nothing that would “injuriously affect a man’s standing in the personal and social relations of life” when we were convinced that the alleged mishap-—say marriage in March and birth in June following—was in-fact true. If that is the position of the Press- the view it takes—we shall beg leave to differ. It is not the condition of birth that fix a man’s social status, or political for that matter, but the character of the man; and there could hatdly be a more forcible illustration of this than truth that afforded by three eminent council in this case The Press, we are sorry to say, omits even a conjecture as to what became of that missing indictment, which should be on the files of the court