Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-03-20


confession and apology, on the part of any
of his detractors who profess to retain any
sense Of honor or fair dealing But 1t Is
not. The Republican does indeed admit
that until some further investigation Is
made by some select and scientific author
ity," ''the presumption of innocence may,
not unfairly, be claimed for the man of
science. who holds his place unchallerged
in the National Academy of Sciences, and
who bears the daily confidence and endorse
ment Of such neighbors and associates a
ex-Pre,ident Woolsey, President Noah Por-
ter and Rev DR.. Bacon; +" but it couples
the admission with halfa column of remarks
like this III he prof s. i guilty, either
of want OF knowledge or want of integrity,
or Of no more than undue carelesSneSs with
his knowledge and his reputation. the pre-
else fact should be known. which comes
little short of n repetition of the original
SANDER and it declares that in view of Pro
fessor Silliman's silence hitherto, the
pres4''-by which 1t means the New York
Sun, the Nation. the Republican. and three
Vermont papers-"are to be excused in
their questioning. if not in their condeutna
tion Of him -
In a like strain the RpuiI,ai devoted
another column TO Mr. Park the other day.
1t admitted, in direct contradiction Of all
it, previous assertions about it, that the
mine was q0od mine" when -'id-and
that probably it is still good property,
and that the English Company which
bought it, "has no complaints Z, make
against Mr. Park or his associates" Yet,
in connection with these admissions, and
to destroy their effect, it gave q version Of
the sale OF the mine. made up by itself. and
in ignorance OF all reliable knowledge Of
the facts, as its repeated calls for inyesti-
cation by legal and mining ,ype:t> show
and as it admits in its closing sentence
I'VE do not know enough OF the details to
aver that all this is exactly true we only
know, taking the public record Of the
mine, a; home and abroad. that it seems 10
version is that the sale was "a put-up Job.
Emma, " it tells US facetiously. was mot
altogether 50 virtuous miss as Park would
have Us believe. Were she, indeed, why
should She come to be an intimate of his %
But We need not quote further from these
repetitions by insinuation, of a SANDER
which the Republican no longer dares d.
rectly endorse. We allude 10 them now,
not at all as accepting the role Of advocate
or defender Of Mr.. Park and Professor Sill
man-those gentlemen are abundantly able
to take care of themselves-but simply to
call attention, in the interests of common
truth and decency,t to heoutrageous unfair
ness Of this kind Of treatment of individ-
ual regulations. The theory Of the R,plli-
hcan, Sun and Nation, acted on by them in
this and other constantly recurring cases, is
that fair standing and hitherto unblemish |
ed repute is Of 20 account in the ease |
Of any man-unless he happens TO be |
a personal or political friend Of the
" independent editors Of those sheets.
An accusation brought against a
man, no matter from how irresponsible,
malicious or interested a source, Is to be his |
condemnation, until he denies it and then |
his denial is to be discredited. because his |
has been damaged by the lie he
denies.
We wonder. sometimes, how the editors
ofthose papers would enjoy the treatment |
they give to Others. Suppose, for instance,
the name OF the responsible editor Of the
Springfield Republican vas Jones. and that
the other Springfield paper, the Union,
were To publish a false charge. to the effect
that Mr. Jones maintained improptr rsla-
tion> ~ th woman Of bad charact, r, the
assertion r"n,ing from n man Of no larac-
ter, and "i " hom all taat the Union knew
was ttal be had g-udge against Mr..
Jones SUPPOSE that Mr.. Jones, tust-
NJ that his good name and anne
night fairly be placed against 50 scandal
Gus and unsupported charge, declined
20 notice it, till ho found his silence &C.
'epted and commented on rs proof Of his
;uiit Suppose he then denied the char re.
also the evidence of other tro III
Ill persons, to tho effect that they KIN W
Iot only that his relations were not such sls
we're alleged with the woman alluded tn.
ut also that she was woman not of bad
ut of good character. Suppose tie
mon should then begin to back and fill,
epeating the charge in one sentence. and
alf Withdrawing 1t in the next should !
ali for an investigation should discredit
he evidence because it came from friends
nd associates of Jones should hold it.
elf to be excused by Jones previous silence
~ questioning, ii not condemning him |
nd should wind up with declaring that Il e
-oman involved could not De as virtuous as
epresented-else why should she have bee n
n intimate of Jones? Should we not E
kelly to hear some protesting on the par
Jones against that kind of ''inGependen
p Would not the Republican
e asking whose good name was safe. if
nat sort of thing were to be allowed
ct the tnion's treatment of Jones in the
use supposed would be only a close parallel
, the Republican treatment Of Prof. Sill .
IAN and Mr. Park.