The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-06-23
NOT MISTAKEN.

In replying to an item in which We
contrasted the manner in which Re-
publican and Democratic papers treat
ed public men accused of corruption,
aud incidentally mentioned Speaker
Kerr aid pX Speaker Blaine, the CO,t-
rier. under the head of ''Slightly Mis-
taken, says: .
Our neighbor is sadly mistaken on
several points made in the nDove.
There NAV not be any difference be-
tween the nature of the charges against
Speaker Kerr and ex-Speaker Blaine,
but between the men making the
charges, the probable motives actua-
ting them, there is as wide n difference
as between roo~'"v light and mid
night d9i,,.., - a.. Dfuad rs between
heaven aud he'll Which makes all the
difference ~ f,ip world why the one
ease sli"u;G "a. irsaied different from
the other.
In the case OF Kerr, the charge is
made by Republican against Dem
ocrat, by II man admitted to be with
out character, an Infamous scoundrel,
whose oath is perfectly worthless
where he is known.
In Blaine's ease, the charge comes
from Republicans against Republi-
can, of character and standing, for all
that is known to the contrary, equal
To tiIat of Blaine himself, and whose
word aud oath in amy case. is as good
a. thar Of the tx Speaker, and better
in the c;,s.. in hand. where Blaine is so
deeply Interested.
-,"B.nw hot and eold." Consistency,
tbou art a irY.ii In the one case he
aiiirns the iai character of bis Re-
publican aceuser as tue reason why
Kerr was acquitted, ia the other case
the good character of Republican, ar
cusers, why Blaine was and is. We
always supposed the testimony was the
determining agent. In the case of
Kerr, Harney's testimony was direct
and pointed, ami sustained by Green
the party's paying the money, and it
was not, and presumably cannot be
because it has not been) impeached.
To Offset that We have only the tes.i-
mony o. Kerr himself, and he the most
yitally interested of all the parties to
the accusation. The attempt to de-
stroy Harney's character was an utter
failure Kerr was acquitted on his own
testimony, and because Of sympathy
for bis age and infirmaties.
Now apply the same rule to Blaine.
HIS own testimony, like Kerr's, was in
vindication of himself, the officers of
the Pacific Road Joined in the vindica
ton, Col. Thos. A. Scott came forward
ruaufuIly and vindicated him, stating
how the bonds came into his (Scott's)
possession, and how they went thence
into the possession of the road; the
letters which MulIigan threatened to
publish vindieated him from the charge
on which he was arraigned, and lastly,
the telegram of Caldwell, from London,
thoroughly indicating him, received
by Knott. but by Knott suppressed,
were all corroborating evidences of his
own averment. Kerr had nothing like
this lis previous character was all
there was in his favor. Blaine's pre-
yious character was as high as Kerr's,
and a multiplicity of testimony sus
taias it,. Kerr's rests upon his own.
In civil suit, on such testimony, if
Kerr had been acquitted, it would have
been on the general principle alone
that the "prisoner must have the bene-
fit of the doubt BIaine's acquittal
would have been based upon the re-
dundant and vindicatory testimony in
his favor. Yes. there is difference,
not, however, in the character of those
making the charges, but in the eviden-