The daily gazette., 1876-04-29
Fir. Blaine Should Explain.
From the Baltimore News.

From the Baltimore News.
1t may be Mr.. Blaine's misfortune
and net his fault that he is pursued
with an Infamous charge; it may be
unjust to exclude him from the Pre-
sldency because of the temper of some
vindictive partisan. But the country
can take ne risks and it will demand
and does demand of Mr.. Blaine even a
clearer vindication of his good name
than he has given so far.
lie may be innocent, but Mr.. Har-
rlson who, report says, is reliable
and respectable citizen, pursues the
original charge made by him and ten.
ders proof of his assertion. Not only
this. but he says that on more than
one occasion Mr.. Z. II. Rollins, of the
U. L. Is. X. Co., who wrste one of the
letters relied upon by MIR. Blaine for
his vindication, repeated to him that
an investigation of the $64, 900 charge
would lead to Mr.. Blaine's exposure,
and on one occasion this was said in
the presence of a witness. Now, it is
noticeable fact that all the witnesses
in Mr.. Blaine's behalf and the ex-
Speaker himself, make nc mention of
0lr. HarrisoD's name in all their de-
tense and explanations. Mr.. Rollins
certifes that he does not know of any
money being paid by the railroad com
pauy Tor MIR. Blaine's benefit, but does
not deny that he told Mr.. Harrison to
the contrary, and none of them in the
mlldest language contradict the asser
tlen OF the accuser.
Besides, Mr.. Harrison is sustained
by some circumstantial evidence
winch goes a long way. In the first
place he was Il Director in the Union
Pacific; he did write to Mr.. Wilson'S
Credit Moilier Committee upon this
subject four years ago, ond Mr.. Will
son now openly confirms him; MIR.
blaine did own Fort Smith and Little
ROCK stock, upon which he lost accord
ing to his own assertion SEQ, 600. This
definite assertion of his loss indicates
that he disposed of his stock for less
than he gave for it. If go, was the
stock which he got Col. Scott to dis
pose OF tor him part of this stock or
"a constituents" stock?
IL Will be remembered that Mr.,
Blaine at first explained his transac
tlons with Col. Scott as in behalf of a
constituent" now he ignores the
constituent" story which he also told
to DIR. Wilson, and admits that he had
Just such stock at the time this batch
found its way into the Union Pacific
treasury, though his last explanation
never once alludes to the Constituent"
stery. This apparent contradiction
needs explaining, too.
Another circumstance against Mr.
Blaine is the fact that he has grown
enormously rich during his Congress.
sional service, though the salary has
not been exorbitant and he has lived
handsomely all the time. Further
more, he has lost according to his as
sertion in his late explanation, 500, ,0O0
by the Fort Smith and Little Rock
Railroad stock, and 1884, $50, according
to his testimony in the Credit MobilieT
Investigation in 1872, by like invest
ment in the Iowa Falls and Sioux City
Railroad. Altogether, $54, $50. This
circumstance, in connection with the
fact that Mr.. Blaine does not explain
how much he paid for these stocks, or
how he got them, render something
more necessary than the recent ex-
PLANTATION, strong and eloquent as it
appeared to be. Such losses could
only be borne by very rich man
without ruin.
The additional fact, that MIR. Blaine
asserted that the Little Rock and Fort
Smith road received its all from the
State of Arkansas and nothing from
the General Government, in the face
of the fact that Mr.. Blaine fought for
the Baxter government in congress,
appointed the committee which repor.
ted in favor of Baxter and that govern
ment released this very railroad from
the hands of receivers and gave it
back to Mr.. Blaine and his friends,
may not absolutely vitiate the gentle
mans statement, but is a contradiction
which mars the perfection of the vindi-
cation.