The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-06-25
The Bangor Nomination.

On referring to the files of our exchanges
for the last few days, we find some express
sions, which, though evidently used under ex-
element and for that reason partially excusa-
BILE, nevertheless demand some notice at this
time. We have borne with such patience as
we could command, the Misrepresentation of
the Press, which have from time to time ap-
peared in the columns Of our contemporaries
during the warm canvass which has just end
ed, but tits time for such work to cease. We
do not impeach the motives of the Bangor
Times or the Ellsworth american we do say
that they have given currency to unfounoed
aspersions upon the management of the Press;
and we ask OF them now, what we have no
doubt will cheerfully be conceded, the publ
cation in their columns of our peremptory de-
NAL of certain charges for which they have be-
come responsible either editorially or through
their correspondents.
1t has been assertedthat Mr.. Spring is par
tial owner of the Press. That is not true. 1t
has been in one instance intimated, that the
Press was Subsidized" by Mr.. Spring. In
justice to Mr.. Spring and the Press, we enter
our distinct contradiction and condemnation
of this indecent allegation. The Press has
been repeatedly styled the organ of die
Chim@ra known as "The Clique" If such a
clique exists, save in the distempered fancy of
disappointed politicians, we have no knowl-
edge of it. The Press expresses its own con-
victions upon the questions OF the day as they
arise. 1t is not the organ of any clique or
faction. It seeks no leadership, well knowing
that the journal which, like the London Times
or New York Herald, aspires to the reputa-
ton of directing or even rejecting the popu-
lar sentiment of the hour, does so at the ex-
pense of consistency and principle. That
costly sacrifice we are not prepared to make.
For the truth of the statements contained in
this paragraph, we pledge word which no
man has right to dispute and reputation
which we hold very dear.
Recurring to- the more recent files of our
exchanges, we find some severe, and, as we
believe, unfounded structures upon an article
which appeared in last Wednesdays Press,
under the same caption which we use to-day.
We have already published the temperate, ju-
dicious and every way satisfactory reply which
that article drew from the Brunswick delega-
ton. To their reply-a simple statement of
facts which well deserved to be known-we
have nothing to object. But in two of our
lchanges, we find harsher criticism, partially
excused, as we have already said, by evident
excitement, but not now to be passed over in
silence. "Infamous insinuations," "severe
personalities" serious implications" we
deny that anything justifying such epithets
can be found in the article in question and APP
peal to the record, confident that a cooler ex-
animation will satisfy our friends that they
have done us what we must believe to be un-
intentional injustice.
Wedesired the nomination ofour own towns
man. Our right to exercise that preference no
man of common sense will undertake to deny.
Entertaining the decided conviction we did,
lwas certainly our privilege to give the rea-
sps which supported that conviction, and if
posible to bring others to our way of think
Ing. If the candidate of our choice had any
Advantage over his rival, it was our privilege
and oulduty to present that advantage in the
most elective way. Gen. Chamberlain's
1riends had not felt any delicacy about urging
MS military services upon the attention of the
communlty,because Mr.. Spring was civilian.
1t would nave been absurd squeamishness If
they had. We had at least an equal right to
insist upon MI Springs political services. and
it would have been an absurd squeamishness
to have RETAINED because Gen. Chamberlain,s
political record was obscure An the consid-
erations which we urged were strictly true.
Gen.. Chamberlain was not at that time
known, either to the writer of that article Or
to very large portion of the community, ey-
can party. We had then no assurance from
his political antecedents, of his future course.
The Republican newspapers which inclined
to favor the Presidents policy, were warmly
in favor of Gen. Chamberlain. The Demo-
cratic newspapers had paid the compliment of
their abuse to Mr.. Spring. These ares facts.
and as facts they were presented They were
facts which influenced our Judgment and
which we had an indefeasible right to use for
the purpose of influencing the JUDGMENT OF
others. They were not "insinuations.v nor
Implications" nor personalities" even. II
is not personality to say that man favors the
Presidents policy, still less to say that his
political antecedents, SO far as known, furnish
no assurance that he may not hereafter di-
verge from the course which lies straight be-
fore the Republican party. Such statement
may be true or false, but it does not touch pri-
vate character and cannot be called personal.
In this case the statements, so far as they
went, were true.