Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-11-20
THAT TWEED COAT.


umn and half in vain endeavor to
shake off the Tweed coat we fastened to it,
But the more it twists the faster the coat
sticks. We do not intend to be hard upon
the Standard, but would call its attention
to the following facts which we find in its
own columns.
In the Standard of Aug 4th we find the
following:
The democratic administration of the city
of New York has been, or will be before the
month expires, denoupced for FRAUD,
CORRUPTION and EXTRAVAGANCE, u
= WITHOUT A SCINTILLA OF GOOD
EVIDENCE IN ITS SUPPORT.
But the Standard of last week says:
ave did not deny that frauds had been
committed"
If to deny that there was scin-
tilla of evidence of fraud be not to deny
the commission of fraud there is no mean
ing in language. In an article of Aug.
18th denouncing the Maine Farmer the
Standard says:
The Maine Farmer, with zeal that can
not be accounted for in ''neutral" paper,
makes haste to publish half column article
embodying all the MALICIOUS SLAM
DERS of the N. Y. Times UPON THE
OF NEW YORK.
And it continues its defence of the city
government, which was Hall, Tweed Con-
nally and Sweeny, in fact, by pronounc-
ing the charges against them, "wilyul and
malicious hes" ''naalicious .falsehoods, -
courageous SANDERS" But the Standard
of last week says:
How the journal can have the audacity to
declare that the Standard ever defended
Tweed, at time when no accusation had been
made against him, surpasses our c0mprehen-
sion, as much accustomed. as we are to the
falshoods and misstatements of that paper.
Such bare-faced falshood we should think
would go rather hard, even at the Kennebec
Journal Office. The Standard NEVER DE-
Tended HIM OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC
ROBBER, in his rascalities.
Well, if you did not defend Tweed, and
with him the other robbers, when you de-
clared, as above. that the charges against
the city government were .'malicious
SANDERS" &C., what was the occasion OF
your quarrel with the Maine Farmer
That paper had denounced them as they
deserved; how happens it that you felt SC
outraged about the matter as you appear
to have been at that time? With your
new views upon the subject it seems to
us you ought to apologize to the Farmer
for your attack upon it and defence Of
Mr.. Tweed. Be manly and say the Far
mer was right and you wrong. A square
confession to the Farmer would be fair
thing.
The principal dodge which the Stand
ard attempts is to divorce Tweed from the
Ring, and to assert that it could not have
defended him because the attack of the
Times was only upon Hall and. Connolly.
In last weeks issue it says:
The malicious shafts of the Times were
hurled solely at Mayor Hall and Comptroller
Connolly.
That dodge will not succeed. The
Standard must try some other wriggle
There was an attempt by the Ring at the
outset to cast the responsibility upon the
old board of supervisors, in which the
Standard joined. How much the public
believed in it let the late election tell. As
to whether the Times aimed at Hall and
Connolly alone we let that paper speak
for itself. In the issue of the Times OF
July 10, we find the following:
1.-THE single defense put forward by
Hall and his confederates is that the frauds
we have exposed were perpetrated under
the'old regime
Let it be noted, once for all, that this de-
Tense amounts to plea of guilty. HALL,
TWEED, CONNOLLY AND SWEENY
WERE THE LEADERS OF THE OLD
REGIME, and the only difference between
the old and the new, is that the four men
now have all the power which they were
formerly compelled to share in a slight de-
gree, with several others.+ THE
FOREMOST OFFICE under the new
regime w A S BESTOW ED UPON
TWEED, who had been the leader of the
old board Of supervisors and Who Was priUq
to every fraudulent transaction conceded in
that body"
Thus saith the Times. Let the Standard
take notice, and let others Judge for them
selves about the facts. But, whines the
Standard,
II there no difference between expressing
doubts as to persons guilt of particular
offence, and defending and endeavoring to
screen him from righteous, just punishment
after he is proved guilty by the unanimous
voice of the best men in the community,
either directly or through legally constitu-
ted jury selected from their numbers?
To be sure there is Inference But
when the doubts are expressed in the way
of positive assertion that the charges are
false" malicious SANDERS" without a
"scintilla Of evidence" to support them,
the language is as strong in defence as it
well can be. The Standard seems to think
everybody should have treated the robbers
politely until alter they were tried and
condemned in the courts, then it would be
in order we suppose to say in the mildest
manner DOssihle that that ssoyraat loo dor IN,