Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 October 1884 — That “Scotch” Marriage. [ARTICLE]

That “Scotch” Marriage.

The Indianapolis Sentinel seems to have “loaded for bear” when it went gunning for Blaine. And it seems to have a good deal of ammunition left, even after firing two or three pretty effective charges. As we have said, the only interest the public has in the disgusting business is to learn whether Blaine has been telling the truth or not. We regret to say the evidence Is piling up against him. It will be remembered that in h’s letter to Phelps, Blaine told his story of a “marriage in the sight of God," which took place June 30, 1850, but which he says was invalid because he didn’t know a license was requisite. (He did not say what was equally true, that on June 30, 1850, he was a minor, and therefore Incapable of contracting marriage.) He says the following winter, to avoid complications, they repaired to Pittsburgh, and were again married. It now appears from the following document, owrecord in Blaine's Kentucky home, that hio story of

his ignorance of the necessity for a license was false: “Know ail men by these presents, that we. Wm. A. McKim and James G. Blaine, are held and firmly bound to the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the sum of sso current money, for the payment of which to be made to the said Commonwealth we bind oursetves, onr heirs, our executors, and administrators jointly and severally by these preeents sealed and dated thia 3d day of October, A. D. 185 U The condition of the above obligation is such that if there is no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage betweenJVm. A. Mchim and Miss Sarah E. Stanwood, of Bourbon County, for which a license is now obtained, then this obligation be void, or else in full force. W. A. McKnr. “Jamei G. Blaine.” Here he appeared as a bendsman for a license tor the marriage of his wife's sister nearly six months before his Pittsburgh wedding, and in ample time to have placed the legitimacy of his first-born beyond all cavil, had he been so disposed. It is also susceptible of proof that several months after the alleged marriage Blaine appeared at a Kentucky watering-place called Drennan Springs, and claiming to be unmarried, sought the hand of another lady in wedlock. But, worse than all else, it now turns out that the Doth day of June, 185t>, was Sunday. And who will pretend that Mr. Blaine thought that a marriage by a minor, in secret, without license or minister, and on Sunday, was legal?—Chicago News.