National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-03-21

publican or Democrat The Post re-
sponded that the name would be forth
coming upon the demand of any member
Of the Garfield Cabinet. We suggested
that the several gentlemen thus referred
10 be urged to call for the name of the
'ssailant of the man who had honorod
them. Whether this was done or not we
do not know. We only know that yes
terday's Post contained q lengthy COM
from William Brown, who
says that he was u delegate to the last !
National Republican Convention from |
the State of Kentucky, Seventh Congress
sional District, and that he wrote the Of |
fensive letter. He coted against General
Gapieid and against GcnGUL Grant on
de,y ballot. HEvoTED on EVERY BALLOT
G. BLAINE. This argues nothing
against Mr.. Blaine and his friends any
more than it would have argued against
the President or General Grant or Mr..
Conkling if the writer had proved to be
one of the 30G But we mention the fact
shat William Brown, who has so bitterly
denounced the late President Garfield
in the Post over the signature OF" Justice"
did vote for Mr.. Blaine on every one
of the thirty-six ballots at Chicago
in order that we may call attention to
the fact that the editor Of the New York
Tribune of yesterday could find nothing to
say against him-not word. Readers of
the IifbURe will remember how it thrsted
for the blood of Stalwart who could thus
defle new-made grave. When it turns
out to be Il Blaine man-first, last, and all
the time-who had 50 offended it is as
dumb as an oyster.
Yesterdays issue of the Tribune had
the following:
WAsHGNGToS, March lO.-The author of the let.
ter published in the Washington Post several days
ngo over the signature Of Justice" in which a
violent attack was made upon the late President
james A. Garfield, will have in to- morrow's Post
another letter in reply TO his critics, which is
signed with his true name The writer is William
Brown, who claims to have been delegate to the
Chicago convention from the Seventh District of
Kentucky.
The Tribune correspondent omits to
say that Brown voted against Grant, and
for Blaine, at Chicago and not a syllable
of comment on the dispatch can be found
in any other part of the paper. No in
dignation. Mr. Whitelaw Reid sees no
oflense in it, coming, us il does, from
man who voted thirty-six times for his
candidate. When he thought it the pro-
duction of Stalwart he writhed and
hissed like a serpent. The public will
see through all this malice by and bye.
TIE REPUBLICAN, has no intention of in
vading the camp of the majority at Chi
cago" in order to discipline Mr.. William
Brown. 1t has nothing to add to what
has been already said on the subject. If
he has not served any other purpose he
has shown that any man who was not for
Grant in 1880 may assail the memory of
General Garfield as viciously as words
can do it without any immediate rebuke
from the New York Tribune. Perhaps
that journal may administer its lecture
to-day. Better late than never.
With William Browns former letter,
which we did not publish or his present
explanation of his motives, we have
nothing TO do. We copy SO much of his
last letter as relates to his identity. lie
says:
Itis true voted thirty-sx times against him in
the Chicago convention, but when that body made
him our candidate worked hard many weeks for
his election, SAID everything good could say of
him, and rejoiced at his success for twas the vic.
tory of my party and not of the man The Rcpub-
licans might have nominated his satanic majesty
and would have done the same thing.
N 1attn b,tt,I In
Chauncey |. Filey, Of st. Louis, and It has been
alleged was inspired by the stalwarts ana writ
ten by one of the delegates who supported Gene.
raj Grant This, you know, Is IL mistake. No
living soul had anything to do with it, and no one
saw it until placed in your hands. It was my
own conception, impecd by the reasons stated.
| belong TO n body Of men who have high respect
for General ROsGcrans, though have not seen
him for many years, and us know as much of all
this matter as any one, did not think it right to
permit this good old soldier to suffer in silence. II
Is true ANA "Stalwart" In my devotion to the
Republican party, but / was not n Grant man,
and II Is my duty to those who were for
him at Chicago to say | was not one of them.
General Grant, General Rosccrans Mr. COnkling,
Mr. Blaine, Mr. Filley had no more to do with the
letter than Mahomet. In justice too, to the Grant
men, | say that in the Chicago convention cast
thirty-siX votes for Mr., Blaine, lie would, know,
have bitterly opposed my letter. but am my own
master and must think and act for myself
inclose you the official report of the Repubi-
can convention Of the State of Kentucky, held at
Louisville, April II, 1850 You will see by that
that was n delegate to the Chicago convention
from the Seventh District Of that State. / here
with submit my references as IA lawyer and beg
leave to subscribe myself yours, respectfully,
WILLIAM BROWN.
The proceedings of the convention
show that Mr.. Blaine received one vote
from Kentucky on the first thirteen bal
lots, two on the following fifteen and
one on the remaining eight. They fur
ther show tnat William Brown was Il
delegate from Kentucky and from the
Seventh District. Mr., Blaine will no
doubt be as much ashamed of the con-
duet of this thick-and-thin partisan as
he will be of the editor of the Tribune
for receiving in silence the dispatch an
nouncing him as the assailant of the
dead Garfield.
4 SWARM Of milers fooing around Il
gaslight is strikingly suggestive of a
gathering Of Democratic statesmen con-
sidering the tariff question.
A LONG line Of failures has not dis.
couraged the Cabinet-makers. They are
at work again with zeal commensurate
with their lack Of knowledge,
BY the way, what has become of the
New American Policy?" If permitted
to get cool now it will be irremediably
frisid in 1884,
The boys" in Europe are still "work-