Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1874-07-21
Prevarication--Senator Question.

On AteNIlcatiOl,| taxing the authority
"f It's Oxford correspondent for discredit.
ING us-the one who says that the editor
OF the Den0cra is the oniy friend of MIR.
Perbam in Paris. The gHllabilky of the
editor OF the TAtg is marvellous.
The first point be makes is. that the
language used by Us, TO wit; "that We
We were personally assured, with many
others, that Mr.. IIamlin would not be n
candidate again, was perfectly calculated
TO convey the impression that Mr.. Ham,
lin had consulted with him (uS) on the
subject and given him (us) such assur.
anco"-which the Wig does not assert TO
te untrue-bul which be predicts we will
not affirm.
We submit that the language does not
imply that Mr.. Hamlin consulted with rs
and gave rs such an answer. II Mr.
Hamlin'S remark was made in the pres
once OF several, among whom we were,
and not addressed to us Individually, We
should DO warranted in saying 1--WE were
assured, with others, &C., and that he did
this, the Hon. Senator will not deny. He
did il to frequently, la that Senatorial
campaign, tor him to give his personal
denial. though his friends may every
where deny il Tor him. Indeed he held
to the same idea IS late IS 1872, when
Gen. HersoY was nominated for Congress,
and when he made 4 speech which the
Bangor Waig published tho next day,
The report from the files OF the lFhig. is:
There were loud calls for Hamlin, aud
when be came forward, he WAS greeted
with tumul,uous applause.
lie said lie was always gratlied to
meet The intelligent people OF this district.
and should never forget tie deep personal
obligations under which they had placed
him
This ,r5ul3 Dc, doubtless, tbe last po'H.
zeal campaign ia ,Ctich he 5coaI4 engage,
as De- iHicEue{ hereafter % take piIce 10
d. kiS duty q. ne ranks"
The Vtiy, in support of its charge of
pyevayic2,ioa on our part, next refers to
our statement tia. "lour.fitbs Of our
Coaa,y Convention were entirely in &c.
cord with Gov. pegham. aad are friendly
to his election as L. ). Senator" We
stand to the rcnars ard firmly believe il.
anil viii defy any one % take our pub.
lished list Of the delegates TO ,ha, Con.
yention, and poin; out EigciecE OF them
in favor Of Nc. Hlm,in in preference TO
NJ. Pelham.
Nothing, in the proceedings OF the
Convention, we again affirm. was hostile
to Nr. Peyaam. The organization Of the
Convention was uot-thc nominees were
not, nor were the committees, and Tie
silly s,atenea, whicA is hcsalLed abroad.
as so significant. thu. Mr. perham WAS
no. invited 20 address the Convention,
amounts to nothing L. would have ,aSen
but one Individual to call him oat; but it
was well known, by his friends. who
urged him TO speak. tha. he did not wish to
do so, occupying tie position he did, as
candidate who would come before some
who were to be nominated by the Con.
you,ioa. And SO. Is 20 The matter O!
endorsing Mr. Peyham by The Convention.
!, is said that e resolution was prepared. /.
but Withheld, and the inference is drawn /
from this that Tie Convention was anti. /
PeIham. We Will no; doay that We iryor. I
ed passing such resolution, being aware .
oi The Importance which would be attach .
cd TO j, abroad. Bu! rs the IIamlin men
il tie County had Tor some time mani. .
tested very great fear lest The Convention .
should commit itself 10 Mr.. Perham,
al cgiug rs reason that it would defeat
The election OF It's Senatorial candidates
and, - many OF air Perham's friends
feared that the passage Of resolution
tho Convention to him might
result in The reduction OF The Republican
majority for Senator'S by nearly the num-
Der OF lIam,iu Republicans ~ the County
and having perfect confidence in Tie Soma.
tors nominated, we concluded not 20 dol
We ale still confident il would have pass
ed The Convention, by a large vote. What
.liI the Uam!in men mean by their
threats ? Do they intend to cut down
Perhan men nominated for either branch
ol the legislature, or Tighten Tie limid,
10 prevent their nominations
There IS one other point which has
been referred to as so significant. and we
will refer TO it-yiz: that Hon. John p.
Swasey was not acceptable TO the Perham
men because he would no, pledge him,
set, aud Capt. Isaac Chase was run
against bin. as a Perham man. TO defeat
him. The facts are. that rs long ago as
las, winter, a very worthy man desired
the nomination Of senator, and having
many friends, it was known he would
stand good chance to procure it, on any
occasion when the Senatorial question
was not pending, but being known to be
personally hostile to Mr.. Perham. the
friends OF Mr. Perham started Mr.. Swasey
10 drive him off the track, and when he
found the opposition to him to DO so great,
on account of his relations to MIR. Perham,
he retired from the field. As to Capt.
Isaac Chase, be was sustained by personal
friends, some OF whom may have sought
10 promote his interest by asserting that