Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1883-08-17
WHO DEREArED H1NcocK1
A READABLE ACCOUNT or THE AMUSING LIT
TILE TEMPEST WHICH NOW Au1TATEs THE
f,rafngp arf,t ftstpnr

TILE TEMPEST WHICH NOW AGfrATEs THE
DEMOCRATIC TEAPOT
From the Now York Tribune, Aug. al
The controversy excited by the disclosures
made by Mr.. Brdsall Of Connecticut, in the
Hartford Courant, concerning the part taken
by Mr.. Tilden in the defeat Of Gen. Hancock
in 1850 assumes so many different phases that
il il by no means eaGy to keep track Of them.
These disclosures, it will be remembered,
wero first published anonymously, the editor
of the Oourant averring only that they came
from prominent and well-known Democrat.
Our contemporary the Sun Immediately de-
nounced them as Giles" and 'unmitigated
lies, and even went so far as to speak of
them as mythical and intimate that they
were invented by the Courant. Presently,
however the responsibility for them was
avowed by Mr.. d. Q. Birdsall Of Westport,
Conn, who certainly answers the Courants
description as prominent and well-known
Democrat This gentleman repeated and en-
larged his original statements concerning Mr..
Tilden's alleged treachery to Hancock and his
efforts to defeat the ticket, and added thereto
that our contemporary the Sun largely con-
tributed TO the same end by UNANIMOUSLY de-
nouncing" Gen. Hancock during the last week
of tho campaign of 1850. This, it was sup
posed, would bring out from our contempora-
ry something in the form of proof of its orig
luhl hlhAblhtnN luhl llb tnhEkbb preferred Dy
Mr.. Birdsall were false, it not being practical
bic any longer to deny the fact of the inter
view or the existence Of the prominent and
well-known Democrat.
Somewhat to the general surprise, our con-
temporary did not do this, nor even repeat its
impetuous assertion of the falsty Of the
charges. 1t did take up, however, the charge
of Mr.. Birdsal that it had UNANIMOUSLY de-
rided' Gen. Hancock within the time alleged,
and with its indignant denial of the same Of
fered a reward of $4,000 for the finding in its
files during the last two weeks of the cam
paign Of 1850 of ANY editorial article, line
or word justifying the charge that the Sun
aided to secure Gen. Hancock defeat by de-
riding him, UNANIMOUSLY or otherwise" With
this the question whether Mr.. Tilden did en-
deavor to defeat Hancock seems to have been
laid aside, and the controversy entered upon
the new phese--whether the Sun aided in Sc
curing his defeat by "infamously deriding
him during the last two weeks of the cam
paign. Thereupon the Courant with great
promptness brought forward an extract from
the Sun of October Is, 1850, in which it was
said, among other sharp things that the cam
paign had been "series of blunders," that
1.-THE party has but one man of strength, who
is Samuel J. Tilden, that Gen. Hancock is "a
good man, weighing go pounds But Han
NSNAA
[The Democrats are beaten badly beaten whether
beaten TO death is another question The whole cam
paign has been series Of blunders. The party has
but one man of strength, who is Samuel j, Tildcu
The party nominated Gen. Hancock q good man
weighing $50 pounds. But Hancock Is not Tilden
Then, as browning act Of folly the party went into
the state Of Thomas A. Hendricks and took another
man for vice president Any name other than that Of
Hendricks would have been folly enough; but, to 20
one step further, they had to take a man with the
most odious reputation as a skiuhnt 90 overcome
There used to be fellow who made an OCCUPATION Of
buttng his head against rough-stone New England
wan Tor 20 cents Inc Democratic party, in making
this nomination. rcsembled him; only, II report bt
true, they did not get the Is ccnts.l
At this point the controversy was exciting
the attentive interest of the press Of the coun.
try, and opinions flowed in from all sides up
on the questions first, and chiefly, whether
this article, having been published IL days
before the election came properly within the
two weeks limit second, whether our con.
temporary would take advantage of the tech
nicality in any event third whether the ex
tract amounted to infamous dersion :" and
fourth, whether it aided to secure Gen Han
cocks defeat. So far as we are able to Judge
there seems to be practical unanimity on the
part of the Democratic press, particularly in
the opinion that it was infamous derision ri
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 that eth
er the $1,000 had been paid over or arrange
ments were in progress for summoning Jury
Of experts to whom all the questions in issue
would be referred. But yesterday an entirely
new phase was given to the controversy by
the publication by our contemporary of IA col
umn or more of atlidavits from persons living
in Westchester and Orange counties who
claim to have known Mr.. Birdsall intimately
for a long time, and say that he is an exceed
ingly untruthful person. Several persons
make oath that he was called "Porgie" One
man swears that when he moved from Canter-
bury he owed the deponent "between eight
and ten dollars. Another swears that This
companions were, in many cases. low and de-
graded, " an affidavit which seems unnecessary
when it is considered that in making these
disclosures he confessed to having been on the
stump for the Democratic party and in the
confidence of its leaders. But what we fail
to find in any of the afidavits-and that is
what confuses us-is anything touching any
of the points raised in the original controver
sy. These three points-irst, that he was
myth second, that Tiden did not contribute
to Haucock's defeat and third that the Sun
did not aid in the same by UNANIMOUSLY de.
riding the general-seem to have been lost
sight of or abandoned.
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 contemporary judgment in the matter,
we feel constrained to say, that, while the
public would like very much to have the orig
inal controversy settled, it cares very little
whether Mr.. Birdsall was known as "Porgie, 81
or who his ''low and degraded companions
were. What the public wants to know is,
who did defeat Hancock ?"