New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-14
NEW PHASES or The BiRDSALL DIScLoS

URES.
The controversy excited by the disclosures
made bv Nj. Birdsall, of Connecticut, to Inc
Hartford Courant concerning the part taken
Inv MIR. Tilden in the defeat of General Han
cnck in 1890 assumes so many difierent
phases that it is by no means easy TO keep
track of them. These disclosures, it will be
remembered, were first published anonymously
the Editor of The Courant averring only thal
they came from prominent and weil-Rho"n
Democrat. Our contemporary 1he SHn I'M
mediately denounced them as Ines" ana
"unmitigated les and even went so lar as
TO speak of them as mythical and intimate
that they were invented by The Courdnt
Presently. however, the responsibility Tor
them was avowed by Mr.. ID. {. Brdsal' OF
Westport, Conn.,, who certainly answers me
COuydnfs description "a n prominent ana wen
known Democrat. This gentleman repeated
and enlarged his original statements concern
ing Mr.. Tllden's alleged trcachery to Hancock
and his efforts to defeat the ticket,
and added thereto that our contcmpo-
rary The Sun largely contributed to
the same end by "infamously de-
riding" General Hancock during the last week
posed would bring out from our contemporary
something IN the form OF proof OF ITS original
statement that the charges preferred by MIR.
Birdsall were false, it not being practicable
any longer to deny the fact OF the interview
or the existence OF the prominent and we'll
known Democrat.
Somewhat to the general surprise, our con-
Temporary did not do this nor even repeat its
impetuous assertion Of the falslty OF the
charges 1t did take up, however, the charge
OF Mr.. Birdsall that it had UNANIMOUSLY de-
ridedr General Hancock within the time
alleged and with its indignant denial OF the
same offered a reward OF So. 900 for the finding
in its files during the last two weeks OF the
campaign of 1880" OF "any editorial article,
" line or word justfying the charge that The
&" SIM aided TO secure General Hancock
"defeat by deriding him, UNANIMOUSLY or
otherwise" With this the question whether
Mr.. Tilden did endeavor to defeat Hancock
seems to have been laid aside and the cOntro-
vcrsy entered upon the new phase, whether The
Sun aided in securing his defeat ~ " UNANIMOUSLY
deridingn him during the last two weeks OF
the campaign. Thereupon The Courdat with
great promptness brought forward the extract
from The Sun of October Is, 1850, published
few days since IN The TRIBUNE, in which
it was said, among other sharp things. that
the campaign had been "a series OF blunders,"
that "the party has but one man OF strength,
who is Samuel j. Tilden," that General Han
cock is "a good man, weighing two hundred
and fifty pounds. But Hancock ia not Iilden.
etc. ETC. At this point the controversy was ex-
citing the attentive interest OF the
press of the country and opinions
| flowed in from all sides upon the
questions: first, and chiefly, whether this
article, having been published fifteen days be-
fore the election, came properly within the
two weeks limit; second, whether our con-
temporary would take advantage of the
technicality in any event; third, whether the
| extract amounted to "infamOus derisiOn y and
fourth, whether it aided to secure General
Hancock's defeat. So far as we are
able to judge, there seems TO
be practical unanimlty on the part of the
Democratic press, particularly in the opinion
that it was Infamous derison," that it did
aid in securing Hancock's defeat, and that The
Sun would not take advantage of the two
weeks limit.
Our contemporary having been silent on the
subject for several days, we inferred either
that tho $4,000 had been paid over or that
arrangements were in progress for sum-
moning jury of experts TO whom all the
questions in issue should be referred But on
yesterday an entirely new phase was given to
the controversy by the publication by our con-
temporary of column or more of aflidavits
from persons residing in Westminster and Or
ange Counties, who claim 10 have known Mr..
| Brdsal intimately for long time, and say
| that he is an exceedingly untruthful person.
| Several persons make oath that he was called
"Porgie.p Ono man swears that when he
moved from Canterbury he owed the depo-
nent "between eight and ten dollars" Another
swears that 4" his companions were, IN many
cases, low and degraded" an affidavit which
seems unnecessary when it is considered that
| in making these disclosures he confessed
to having been on the stump for the Demo-
cratic party, and in the confidence of Its lead
ers. But what we fail to find in any of the
| afiidavits-and that is what confuses us-is
anything touching any OF the points raised in
the original controversy These three points
first, that he was a myth second, that Til
den did not contribute to Hancocks defeat
and third, that The Sun did not aid in the
same by UNANIMOUSLY deriding" the General
seem to have been lost sight of or aban-
doned.
The dispute has been and continues to be
quite lively one, but there appears to be a
difficulty in holding it for any length of time
to definite point With great respect for
our contemporaries Judgment In the matter,
we feel constrained 10 say that while the publiS