New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-08-25


To the Edttor Of the Tribune.
SIR In closing the series of letters which have,
fear, burdened the columns Of THE TRIBUNE for the
last five months beg leave to call attention with
some exutation to the fact that not single state
ment in the whole nineteen letters has been success
fully impugnedl
Very few attempts in this direction have been
made, and these few have been futile as feeble
SHALL nevertheless trespass far upon the patience
of my readers to notice them.
The first attempt was made by The Springfield Re
publican. 1t very fairly published my letter con-
tanning the charges against ITSELF applying various
headings, each Of which involved falsehood, but
none of which is it useful to specify since The Reab
Iicaas falsehoods have sort of polyp organization,
and only multiply By severance. The Repabhods has
certainly this sign of being prophet OF the Lord
that the Lord hath put lying spirit into Its
mouth. But j am not concerned now with its
untrustwOrthness in the abstract, but only with its
rebuttal Of my charges.
It says that l am as reckless with facts as
am brilliant with epithets." Several papers that
sympathize with The Republican have copied this
general disclaimer but l have never seen one chat
venred to copy its bill of particulars 1t is this:
Gail Hamilton Omits to explain that the attack on
Judge French communication TO The Republican
from person connected with Amherst Agricultural
College his name; that it printed in the
absence or the Edtornchef of the paper, who alone
attention beng called to it by mutual friend, not
as an attorney the disclaimer and Endorsement OF Judge
Frenchs character we promptly and helrtly given
Look at the facts " Of which have been reck-
less":
l. omitted to explain that the attack cOmmu-
nicali0n from person connected with Amherst Agieu-
turll College over Lis own name.
said distinctly 4" The Springfield Republican came
out with a letter." The "person" who wrote the let
for &c of,
letters till the end of the world 1t was the appear
of the letter in The Republican that made itpub-
lie SANDER. As a matter Of fact did not know,
and nothing in his letter indicated, that the per
son y was connected" with the Agricultural Col
lege. The Republican says that he was, and that
creates presumption that he was not. But whether
he were or not, has not the slightest bearing upon
the case. l had never heard Of him before and
have never heard Of him since, and have nothing
whatever to do with him. / said everything that
was necessary when said that lie Springfield Bepab-
Hcm published a letter.
2 printed in the absence Of the Editoriu-
1t is true that did omit to state that the SANDER
was printed in the absence of the Ediorn-chiel for
the simple reason that he had failed to notify Of
his absence. Nor did any statement in his paper
announce his absence. On the contrary this full
iiedged, tapping SANDER indicated that he at
home But all signs fail in dry times and even this,
il now appears, can no longer be depended upon.
The Edtor-in-chet has infused his spirit into his
subordinates that the hand of the apprentice cannot
be distinguished from the hand of the master, and if
we are to know in future what is what the Editor-in-
chief must mark his necessary absences by borrow
ing from obituary literature some little announce
ment to put at the head Of his paper on his Off
days: Gone but not forgotten
3 Who alone knew Judge French personally.
| did not know that the Editor-in-chief knew
Judge French personally or that his subordinates did
not. Nothing of tina sort appears in the paper, and
the Edit0rn-chicf has never furnished me with the
list Of his personal acquaintances. 1t seems now
that the ordinary division Of labor in The RepaJH-
can Office Is that the gentleman whom the Editor-in-
chief does not know is to besandered by his subor-
dinates, while his personal friends are reserved to
be slaudered by himself. The amount Of work ac-
complished by The Republican in this line shows
the advantage of thorough organization
l. That upon his attention being called to it by mu-
tIai friend, not as an attorney
In aletteroyer his own signature, dated Augustus,
1876 Mr. II. T. French says: Il wrote to A. l..
soule of Springfield, to call on Mr.. Bowles as my
friend and attorney, and ask him whether he held
himself responsible for the libel"
g. The disclaimer and Endorsement OF Judge Frenchs
character were promptly and heartily given
The slanderous letter was dated August g, and
priutcd AUGUST L. The retractiOn printed in The
Boston ddre tssr August 23. If The Republican will
give Us the date of the retractOn in its own col
umns | think 10 will be seen that ten or twelve
DAVIS elapsed between the SANDER and the confess
SION and that the confession did not appear till az
ter the appearance of che attorney. That it was
prompt and hearty then, can easily believe.
Through column after column, and paragraph
after paragraph and paper after paper of spasmodo
SANDER The Chicago Tribune wallows foamiug in its
struggle to free itself from the charge which l
fastened upon it, But through all its lashings and
meanings and roarings, penetrates the still small
voice of one vital little truth wTenched out from its
agony" that paragraph did appear in this paper"
This is all that is really essential to my case.
Around this one little luminous disc of truth The
Tribune gathers, in vain attempt at eclipse, cloud
of falsehoods each one apparently as prompt and
perfect and pestent the original sin. OF these,
| select as a specimen a single group:
NOT long after the time Of the appearance Of The
Tribune paragraph, Mr. Blame addressed dleter 20 the
Editor OF The Tribune, inc0sing an article from Pitts
burg paper which he requested published giving short
his note that this article substantially embodied the
facts as 10 religious p0sitiOnthat he had never
been Catholic; that lie belonged TO no church. and had
not enough religion to boast Of" The article which he
sent was printed in The Tribune.
This paragraph believe TO be n fabrication, and
by strange fatality, the truth-around which
think it is ieebly fooling-not only exhibits MIr.
Joseph Medil in the full exercise of his lively and
dcprayed imagination, but also in the very act of
aflixing the stamp Of fraud to his own brow
Not long after the appearance OF The Tribune para
graph Nh Blaine addressed letter 10 the editor OF The
Tribune.
After the appearance of The Tribune paragraph, l
venture TO affirm, it is impossible that Mr..
Blaine ever addressed letter to The Tribune editor,
or held with hun any communication whatever.
Mt Rlnne sinted In Lis note that he belonged 10 no