New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-20
MORE COMPLICATIONS.

MORE COMPLICATIONS.
Without getting much light upon the absorb
ING question opened by the Birdsall disclosures
an to who did really defeat Hancock, the pub
lie is drawing some entertainment at least from
the manner in which the parties to the con-
troyersy skip about and continually shift the
grounds of II in avoiding each other. The pres
ent phase of it, which is brought about by Mr.
Birdsolrs recent letter in The Hartford Cou-
rant IN defence of his own character, seems TO
make 1t necessary to recall the contestants 10
the starting point from which they have greatly
strayed The origina! question was' VINO
did defeat Hancock" MIR. Birdsall, with
commendable desire to enlighten public curl
osity on that point, communicated anony-
mously to The Hartford Courdnt facts salh TO
he within his own personal knowledge tending
IN sbov that Mr.. Tiden behaved treacherously
in the campaign of 1850, and instead OF en-
dooyoripg to promote Hancock's success, ashe
nretapded IN be doing, did actually contribute
TO his defeat. To this communication our con-
temporary, The Sun, put in at once strenuous
and passionate denial, intimatlng that DO sucn
person had an existence as the prominent Dem
ocrat TO whom The COurdnt ascribed It's lnior-
nation. Thereat Nr. Brdsal personally APP
pearsd, repeating bis charges and adding that
orr contemporary did also contribute to Han
cock's defeat by "InfamOusly deriding MIN
during the last two weeks of the campaign
Onr contemporary then, without making any
eftort apparently to prove the falsity OF the
cborce against Mr. Tilden-which seems 70 us
TO he the most important feature of the matter
-dronre ed that question entirely and offered
reward Of $4,000 for the discovery OF any
line or word in its editorial columns during
tho last two weeks of tho campaign that could
be 80 construed as derding General Hancock
| infsmously or otherwise The oher must h"'e
| ha.p made either III extreme haste or mo-
| ment of fOrgetfulness, for at once al over '"o
oorr,rv the nress broke out with extracts from
| the pages of our contemporary during inc pc
Rod referred to, which certainly seem TO an uh-
preiudiced mind to be open to the construction
of having been intended to deride The nhtor-
tunate Hancock. That seems at least 10 oe
| the pretty unanimous opinion OF the DEM
| ocratjc press of the country. Some days nav
| inc el,nsed without the 5000 being PAL d or
| a committee of experts being summoned 10
whom the question should be referred, our con-
| temporary put tho matter IN an entirely new
nhase by the publication of series OF afiidavits
made in 1S64 by neighbors of Mr.. Birdsall VINO
| averred that he was untruthful and haG been
known as Porgie," etc, etc.
And now to this attack upon his personal
character Mr.. Birdsall has responded in letter
oublished in The COurant in which he says that
| the Aidavts above mentioned were USED In
| case against him rs trustee; that persons WHO
| desired his removal secured the country
- and succeeded in subornlng few men OF
| - the most questionable and disreDutable char
q oct.r TO make anidavts" against him; and
that he unhesitatingyImet the issue" and pro-
cured Gfty-six afIdavts of the best known
men in the State. fully sustainingh character in
every respect. One of these, which Is gwen IN
| full. is from Horace Greeley, whose farm ad-
| ioIned that of Mr. BirdsalPs father. Mr.. Greeley
| SAWS he considers him to be man OF strict IN
| tegrity, good moral character active, perseVer-
"in0snd correct in all business transactions" Mr..
Birdsall then proposes TO deposit any sum from
| ons tn fen thousand dollars against like
amount nnon the settlement of the question of
| bis nsrsonal cbaracter-whether from the date
of his admission to tho bar in 1855 no has besn
guilty of any act or deed diSgraoing his pro
fession or his position as an honorable ana
truthful man. All this, which is well enough III
its way-and perhaps under the circumstances
Mr.. Birdsall could hardly do loss-ioes not
touch the real question at issue, which IL, - Did
| Mr.. Tilden desire and contribute to the dsfeat
| Of Hancock =
If the Editor of The Sun in moment of in
| advertence or forgetfulness offered $4,000 for
the discovery OF any line or word that could
I've construed as deriding General Hancock, he
will of course pfy it In due season and If he
is certain that Mr. Blrdsalrs character can be
proved to be 50 bad rs to render him unworthy
of belief, he will no doubt put up the $4,000
proposed by that gentleman and proceed to his
proofs. In that case he will recover the $4,000
previously lost and have $4,000 to the good y
But these things, we must insist, are foreign to
the issue. The original question as stated was
plain and simple. To that we now recall the
disputants Let us have that answered, and
no further complications.
|